Maris Spinners Secures High Court Victory for Rs 19.74 Crore Interest Subsidy Payment
Maris Spinners Limited has won a significant legal battle with the Madras High Court directing the Ministry of Textiles to pay Rs 19,73,65,57 as interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme within two months. The court quashed the ministry's 2018 rejection order, ruling that the company's eligibility for 4% interest subsidy on its Rs 10 crore term loan cannot be denied due to administrative delays by the nodal bank. This judgment establishes important precedent for textile industry subsidy claims and reinforces the doctrine of promissory estoppel in government scheme implementations.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Maris Spinners Limited has achieved a significant legal victory with the Madras High Court directing the Ministry of Textiles to pay Rs 19,73,65,57 as interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFs). The court order, pronounced on 05.01.2026, mandates payment within two months from receipt of the order.
Court Ruling Details
The High Court of Madras, presided over by Justice N. Sathish Kumar, quashed the Ministry of Textiles' order dated 31.10.2018 that had rejected the company's subsidy claim. The ministry had categorized Maris Spinners' case as a "left out case" and refused to extend TUFs benefits on grounds that the nodal bank uploaded loan details only on 10.01.2014, well after the stipulated timeframe.
| Case Details: | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Number: | W.P. No.8340 of 2020 |
| Court: | Madras High Court |
| Judge: | Justice N. Sathish Kumar |
| Order Date: | 05.01.2026 |
| Subsidy Amount: | Rs 19,73,65,57 |
| Payment Timeline: | Two months from order receipt |
Background of the Dispute
Maris Spinners, engaged in manufacturing 100% cotton yarn with 49,536 spindles capacity across Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, had availed a term loan of Rs 10 crores from Indian Overseas Bank on 15.06.2010. The loan was confirmed as eligible for 4% interest subsidy under the TUFs scheme through the bank's letter dated 31.07.2010.
Despite the company's compliance with all prescribed conditions and regular filing of Quarterly Interest Subsidy Claims (QISC), the subsidy amounts remained undisbursed. The company's total interest payment on the term loan amounted to Rs 6,09,60,644, of which Rs 1,97,36,557 represented the eligible 4% quarterly interest subsidy.
Key Legal Arguments
The court established a principal-agent relationship between the Ministry of Textiles and Indian Overseas Bank as the nodal agency. Justice Kumar ruled that once eligibility for subsidy is acquired, beneficiaries cannot be denied accrued rights due to negligent acts by the nodal agency.
Court's Key Findings:
- The petitioner's eligibility for 4% interest subsidy was undisputed
- Delays in documentation submission were attributable to the nodal bank, not the company
- The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies when government schemes create legitimate expectations
- Administrative lapses by implementing agencies cannot prejudice eligible beneficiaries
Government and Bank Positions
The Ministry of Textiles argued that claims should have been submitted within six months of loan sanction (by 14.12.2010) as per circular guidelines. The ministry maintained its policy decision not to extend benefits to "left out cases" where documentation was submitted beyond prescribed timelines.
Indian Overseas Bank contended that the first loan disbursement on 27.09.2010 fell within a "blackout period" when the TUFs scheme was non-operational due to fund constraints. However, the court noted contradictions between the ministry's and bank's positions regarding the nature of the case.
Legal Precedents Cited
The judgment referenced several Supreme Court cases establishing the doctrine of promissory estoppel against government actions, including:
- Pournami Oil Mills vs. State of Kerala (1987): Established rights under earlier government orders
- Pine Chemicals vs. Assessing Authority (1992): Confirmed exemption benefits for entire specified periods
- Manglore Chemicals vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992): Applied promissory estoppel doctrine to government executive functions
Financial Impact
| Financial Metrics: | Amount (Rs) |
|---|---|
| Original Term Loan: | 10,00,00,000 |
| Total Interest Paid: | 6,09,60,644 |
| Eligible Subsidy: | 1,97,36,557 |
| Court-Ordered Payment: | 1,97,36,557 |
The court rejected the company's claim for additional interest on the delayed payment, considering the nature of the subsidy claim. However, the principal amount of Rs 19,73,65,57 must be paid within the stipulated two-month period.
Industry Implications
This judgment sets an important precedent for textile industry participants who may have faced similar issues with TUFs scheme implementation. The ruling reinforces that government scheme benefits, once eligibility is established, cannot be arbitrarily denied due to procedural delays by implementing agencies. The decision strengthens the position of textile manufacturers seeking legitimate subsidy claims under various government modernization schemes.
Historical Stock Returns for Maris Spinners
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +5.93% | +11.51% | +7.46% | -14.84% | -18.03% | +71.42% |






























