PSIDC hell bent on harassing firm: HC

Taking strong note of the accusations leveled by the petitioner,a Muktsar-based company,in a petition,Justice Surya Kant has summoned the Managing Director (MD) of PSIDC,Anurag Aggarwal,an IAS officer. The MD has been asked to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing with the original record of the case. The petition has been filed by one Anil Setia,resident of Muktsar. The petitioner contended that he and PSIDC had entered into a financial collaboration agreement to jointly promote a company under the name M/s Setia Synthetics Limited for setting up a cotton spinning mill.

As per the agreement,PSIDC agreed to invest a sum of Rs 976.50 lakh in the equity share capital of the company. However,in order to avoid labeling the company a government enterprise,PSIDC eventually invested only a sum of Rs 663.86 lakh in the equity share capital while the remaining amount of Rs 312 lakh was disbursed as a loan against equity though its real character continued to be in the nature of equity investment.

The Financial Collaboration agreement contained a buy-back clause,wherein the petitioner was obligated to buy back the equity share holding of the Corporation in M/s Setia Synthetics Limited. However,due to financial constraints the petitioner could not fulfill his contractual obligation to buy back the equity share holding of PSIDC.

“In an attempt to rejuvenate the existing industries,the Punjab government formulated the Industrial Policy-2003 wherein it provided for disinvestment of PSIDC and introduced a concept of one-time settlement policy. As per the policy,the company was asked to pay 129.26 lakh,being 10 per cent of the one time settlement scheme,” reads the petition. The proposal contended was accepted and honoured by the petitioner in June 2009.

However,even after paying the amount,PSIDC refused to return the shares,the petitioner has alleged. Instead,another amount of Rs 13 lakh was demanded by the Corporation. Aggrieved,the petitioner moved the High Court. Despite Court directing the Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner,the Corporation failed to do so. During the resumed hearing of the petition,the Court took strong note of the harassment meted out to the petitioner and passed strictures against the Corporation.