Hindustan Motors alleges WB govt seized closed plant unlawfully; state says unutilised land taken back
Hindustan Motors Ltd., the manufacturer of the once popular and iconic HM Ambassador, on Tuesday alleged that the West Bengal government has unlawfully taken possession of the company's plant in the Hooghly district without notice, despite the matter being pending in the Supreme Court. Responding to the accusation, the state government has said that it had taken back 395 acres of land in 2022 from the company as the land remained unutilised.
Hindustan Motors' Uttarpara plant, where the iconic HM Ambassador cars were once manufactured, has been at the centre of a prolonged legal tussle with the state government over land rights and resumption issues. Responding to the allegation, a land official department official of the WB government has told PTI that the company was given ample opportunities to demonstrate its use, which it failed to do.
The company, in a regulatory filing, said that on July 11, around 11 AM, government officials, accompanied by land department authorities, police personnel and others, entered the company's premises and wrongfully seized its property, including documents, machinery, equipment, licensed weapons and even the customs warehouse. 'The suo motu action taken by the concerned department of the Government of West Bengal, despite our Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has caused considerable prejudice to our challenge," the company said in its regulatory filing.
Hindustan Motors has said that it has submitted a formal complaint and protest to the Special Secretary of the state Land and Land Reforms Department, both via email and in physical form, on July 11 and again on July 14. The company claimed that the state government earlier agreed not to take any coercive action regarding the Uttarpara premises until the Supreme Court hears the matter, which is listed for July 22. The company also expressed surprise over the state's sudden move despite these discussions.
Hindustan Motors' Uttarpara plant, which was once home to the iconic Ambassador car, has been at the centre of a prolonged legal tussle with the state government over land rights and resumption issues. The OEM ceased production at the Uttarpara plant in West Bengal in May 2014, while the state government took back 395 acres given to the company by an order dated November 9, 2022. In Uttarpara, the homegrown automaker had around 720 acres, of which a land parcel of 314 acres was sold to Sriram group in 2009 at ₹ 285 crore for real estate development.
Get insights into Upcoming Cars In India, Electric Vehicles, Upcoming Bikes in India and cutting-edge technology transforming the automotive landscape.
First Published Date: 16 Jul 2025, 07:28 am IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
ED can't act like 'crook', must work within four corners of law: SC
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate cannot act like a "crook" and has to confine itself within the four corners of the law, the Supreme Court on Thursday said as it flagged low conviction rates in cases investigated by the central agency. "We are also concerned for the image of the Enforcement Directorate," a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, N Kotiswar Singh said. The top court is hearing pleas seeking review of the 2022 verdict that upheld powers of arrest of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Centre and the ED, questioned the maintainability of the review petitions and attributed the low conviction rate to the delaying tactics of "influential accused". "Influential crooks have a lot of wherewithal. They employ a battery of lawyers to file applications after applications at different stages to protract the proceedings and the investigating officer of the case instead of devoting time to investigation keeps on running to court for one application or other," Raju said. Justice Bhuyan referred to one of his judgements and said of the 5,000 cases registered by the ED in past five years there were less than 10 per cent convictions and this factual statement was substantiated by the minister in Parliament. "You can't act like a crook, you have to act within the four corners of the law. I observed in one of my judgments that ED has registered around 5,000 ECIRs in the past five years but the conviction rate is less than 10 why we have been insisting that you improve your investigation as it deals with the liberty of the individual," Justice Bhuyan said. The judge continued, "We are also concerned about ED's image. At the end of 5-6 years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?" Justice Kant said the answer to all the problems was having dedicated courts akin to TADA and POTA courts and the dedicated PMLA courts could conduct day-to-day proceedings, resulting in expeditious disposal of cases. "Yes, influential accused will still file numerous applications but these accused and their lawyers will know that since it is day-to-day trial and their application will be decided the very next day. Time has come to hit them hard. We can't have sympathy for them. I know a magistrate who has to decide 49 applications in a day and pass orders for 10-20 pages in each of them. This cannot go on," he said. Raju further noted ED getting "handicapped" after "influential accused" flee to different countries like Cayman Islands aside from dealing in crypto-currencies and other sophisticated methods and impede investigation. On the point of crypto-currencies, Justice Kant said the government ought to seriously think of regulating it for people were operating different apps and crypto stock exchanges. He said top court's Justice Joymalya Bagchi recently said in a case that a day was not far when bribe takers would take bribes in crypto-currency, which will be very difficult for the investigating agencies to investigate. Raju questioned the authenticity of the review petitions, calling them "nothing but appeals" against the 2022 verdict disguised as review. "For the review, you have to make out a case for error apparent on the face of record in the 2022 verdict but they have not stated anywhere what is error apparent. If these reviews are admitted it would amount to rewriting the 2022 judgement," he said. Raju contended that the constitutional validity of the PMLA was in their favour as the Constitution bench in 2019 in the Roger Mathew case upheld the validity of the statute. "They (petitioners) took a chance and failed in that endeavour. Now they're saying, no, that was wrong and redo it. Review can't be an appeal in disguise. They must first demonstrate that there is an error apparent on the face of the record when it comes to these two issues. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error that should be fished out. Review cannot be for asking. They have to make out an exceptionally strong case for review," Raju said. Justice Kant also enquired about the methodology adopted by ED during arrests and whether grounds of arrest and reasons for arrests were given to the accused. Raju submitted there was no obligation on the ED under the statute to supply a copy of the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) to the accused but courts in subsequent ruling stressed on sharing grounds and reasons of arrest with accused persons. The hearing would continue next week. In July 2022, the apex court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the ED's powers to arrest, attach properties involved in money laundering and carry out search and seizure under the PMLA.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Shields minors: Centre defends statutory age of 18 yrs for consent in SC
New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a 'deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation. The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous. The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child's emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. 'Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)." Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent," it said. Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the 'floodgates" to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships. 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy," the Centre said. The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor's vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting 'consent" as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing". The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said. 'The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children," it said. Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights. PTI SJK ABA SJK AMK AMK view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Would rather go for fresh bidding process: Erstwhile BPSL promoters to SC
The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that even though the resolution plan of BPSL was 'flawed', they would rather go for a fresh bidding process. 'If the plan is flawed, I don't want to go for liquidation. I want a fresh process. Even in liquidation, the first priority is to sell the company as a going concern,' Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the erstwhile promoters of BPSL, told the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Vinod Chadran. The apex court last Thursday recalled its 2 May judgment that declared JSW Steel Limited's resolution plan for BPSL 'illegal' and ordered the latter's liquidation—four years after the company was acquired under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Division Bench led by the CJI had allowed the review of the 2 May judgment and decided to hear the appeal challenging the resolution plan afresh, after which the arguments continued on Thursday. Mehta, who appeared for the BPSL promoters, told the apex court that the committee of lenders did not have the power to reopen or modify a resolution plan after it was approved. Responding to the question of his capacity to approach the court, he said any aggrieved person could approach the NCLT or NCLAT (appellate tribunal) to challenge the resolution plan. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for lenders of BPSL, however, said that BPSL was the creator of the problem since they siphoned off 'thousands of crores'. The court will now hear the arguments on Friday, when SG Mehta is expected to argue. Last Thursday, the court had said the 2 May judgment did not appear to be in line with settled precedents and required reconsideration. Experts said the recall of the order in the context of IBC was certainly a rare incident. 'The present marks a 'first of its kind' instance which reflects a much larger principle that the Court is willing to reconsider its orders if deemed necessary in the larger interest,' said Shiv Sapra, Partner at Kochhar & Co. Tushar Agarwal, Founder & Managing Partner of C.L.A.P. Juris, said recalling of orders via exercise of power under Article 142 is very rare and happens in the rarest of rare cases. 'In such cases of liquidation and challenge of NCLAT order, there are no precedents of recall of order,' he said. Shri Venkatesh, Founding Partner of SKV Law Offices, said that similar to the exceptional intervention in the Bhushan Power case, the DMRC-DAMEPL case is another rare instance where the Supreme Court, at the curative stage, set aside an arbitral award despite the award having undergone four rounds of judicial scrutiny and being partially enforced, with significant sums paid and parties restructuring their affairs in reliance on its finality. 'Other cases wherein the Supreme Court has recalled its orders are the Ganpati Dealcom case (2024), wherein the Supreme Court recalled its 2022 judgment that struck down Sections 3 and 5 of the Benami Transactions Act,' he said. Further, in the Vishnu Vardhan fraud case (2025), the Court applied the principle that 'fraud unravels everything' to set aside its own 2022 judgment in Reddy Veerana, he cited. 'Similarly, in the Karnail Singh land law case (2024), the Court recalled its 2022 verdict for failing to consider a Constitution Bench precedent, observing that 'ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order',' he said.
