CWP-23011-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-23011-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 M/s HSK Alloy Steels Limited …Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.09.2022, Annexure P-11, passed by the second respondent/Director of Industries and Commerce, whereby the release of capital subsidy sanctioned by the department vide memo no.Inc-1/Sub/PTL/H- 86/5936-C dated 08.06.2001, has been declined to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel contended that the rejection is in violation of law laid down by this Court in Jainsons Chemtech Private Limited and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2026 NCPHHC 64111, wherein the respondents were directed to release the sanctioned amount of subsidy along with interest. The petitioner is identically placed as Jainsons Chemtech was in that matter. The Court observed as under: PAYAL 2026.07.31 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-23011-2026 -2- 7. From the perusal of record and arguments of both sides, it is evident that issue with respect to entitlement of a closed unit qua capital subsidy stands settled. As per judgment of this Court in M/s. Balak Gases Oxygen Gas Plant v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 413, the respondent is liable to disburse sanctioned subsidy despite closure of the unit. The respondent has raised new issue on the basis of its instructions dated 13.11.2019. As per respondent, name of company stands struck off by ROC, thus, it ceases to exist. This Court in Gupta Steel Udyog v. State of Punjab, Law Finder Doc Id # 2698050, as well as M/s Golden City Agro Tech v. State of Punjab, 2024 NCPHHC 34743, has already held that aforesaid instructions are inapplicable to already sanctioned subsidy. 8. In the cases in hand, subsidy was sanctioned much prior to aforesaid instructions. Name of the company was struck off much after sanctioning of subsidy. The respondent did not disburse subsidy despite being sanctioned. The respondent is trying to take advantage of its omissions. The petitioner units were existing at the time when subsidy was sanctioned. The respondent did not discharge its liability within time and at present is trying to take advantage of instructions which were issued in 2019 i.e. almost after two decades from the date of sanctioning subsidy. 9. As per Section 250 of Companies Act, 2013, the company does not cease to exist despite being struck off under Section 248 for the purposes of affecting its recovery. In the present case, the respondent sanctioned subsidy much prior to striking off its name, thus, it has every right to recover already sanctioned subsidy. 10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed to release sanctioned subsidy within 8 weeks from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing petitions before this Court. The respondent would be at liberty to transfer PAYAL 2026.07.31 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-23011-2026 -3- sanctioned subsidy in favour of PFC where loan amount is outstanding against any petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel is not in position to dispute the aforementioned factual and legal position. 4. In view thereof, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.09.2022, is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the amount of sanctioned subsidy to the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from thirty-eight months prior to filing of the petition to the date of actual payment. These directions shall be carried out within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.31 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment