In Brief
A sugar factory (Swami Samarth) obtained an Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) in 2010 to establish a new mill within 15 km of existing mills, a condition then applicable. Rival factories challenged the aerial distance certificate through writ petitions (2010–2014) and again when the appellant sought location change and extension (2017–2020). The High Court rejected the IEM on grounds that: (i) the amended 25 km distance rule (enacted 2011) applied retroactively, and (ii) the appellant failed to take effective steps within the statutory deadline. The Supreme Court held that: litigation periods can be excluded from the time limit as an unforeseen circumstance; the 2010 IEM is governed by the 2010 distance rule; and IEM does not automatically lapse—formal de-recognition is required. The appeals were allowed, dismissing the writ petitions and excluding the litigation periods from the time calculation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.