Bfn Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Bombay HC8 Apr 2025WP/3681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MEIS rewards; DGFT processing of export incentives; 174 shipping bills; EDI system correction and transmission to DGFT; writ of mandamus; technological/electronic system glitches; ease of doing business; time-bound disposal within six weeks; Rule absolute; no costs; reliance on Technocraft Industries (WP 3202 of 2022, 13-01-2023) and Larsen & Toubro (WP 3667 of 2024, 13-11-2024); Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 3681 of 2024; BFN Forgings Pvt Ltd; Union of India.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in the terms, without any costs order; Respondents 2 and 3 directed to process the Petitioner's MEIS applications in respect of the 174 shipping bills as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order, and to communicate their decision to the Petitioner within six weeks.

Bfn Forgings Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 should be directed to make the necessary changes in the EDI system and transmit the details of 174 shipping bills to the DGFT. +1 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Court is satisfied that the issues raised in this Petition are covered by its decisions in Technocraft Industries and Larsen & Toubro Limited.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

There is no justification for the DGFT not processing the Petitioner's MEIS applications for the 174 shipping bills due to systemic glitches, which appear to have now been largely resolved.ratio¶¶32
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to process the Petitioner's MEIS applications with respect to the 174 shipping bills as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within six weeks from the date of uploading of this order, and to communicate their decision to the Petitioner within six weeks.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Bench of M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. (oral judgment per Sonak, J.), dated 07 July 2025, in Writ Petition No. 3681 of 2024 filed by BFN Forgings Pvt Ltd against Union of India & Ors. The Petitioner, an exporter, sought (i) mandamus to Respondents 4 and 5 to effect changes in the EDI system and transmit details of 174 shipping bills to the DGFT, and (ii) mandamus to Respondents 2 and 3 to allow MEIS rewards for the 174 shipping bills. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the issues stand covered by the coordinate-bench decision in Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd v. UOI, Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2022 (decided 13 January 2023), pursuant to which EDI-system changes had been effected, and relied on the Court's own decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. UOI, Writ Petition No. 3667 of 2024 (decided 13 November 2024). Holding the issues covered by those two decisions, the Court found no justification for the DGFT not processing the MEIS applications for the 174 shipping bills due to systemic glitches now largely resolved, and directed Respondents 2 and 3 to process the applications and communicate their decision within six weeks from uploading of the order. Rule made absolute in the terms, without costs. In following Larsen & Toubro, the Court reiterated (quoting its earlier paragraphs 24 and 26) that bonafide parties cannot be made to suffer for gaps in electronic handling systems, and that benefits granted by law or Government schemes cannot be denied or unduly delayed by citing technological glitches.

¶1

9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX

¶2

Amol

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3681 OF 2024

¶6

BFN Forgings Pvt Ltd …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr Ashish Chauhan , with Ms Nisha Shah & Ms Tithi Upadhyay, i/b, Kalpesh Joshi Associates, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr Savita Ganoo , i/b, Ms Tanu Khatri, for the Respondents 1 to 3.

¶9

Mr Karan Adik , with Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent No. 4.

¶10

Mr Jitendra B Mishra , with Ms Sangeeta Yadav & Mr Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent No. 5.

¶11

AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV

¶12

Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.07.08 11:55:40 +0530

¶13

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 07 July 2025

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak, J)

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

This Petition seeks the following substantive reliefs:-

¶18

“(i) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions, to the

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX

¶21

Respondent No. 4 and 5 for making the necessary changes in EDI system and transmitting the details to DGFT w.r.t. 174 Nos of shipping bills.

¶22

(ii) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions, to the Respondent No. 2 and 3 for allowing the MEIS rewards w.r.t. 174 Nos of shipping bills.”

¶23

Mr Ashish Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the issues raised in this Petition stand covered by the decision of the Coordinate bench in Technocraft Industries (India) Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors¹ . He points out that pursuant to the directions in this judgment and order, necessary changes have been made in the EDI system for transmitting the details to the DGFT. He therefore submits that the prayer clause (i) stands worked out.

¶24

Mr Ashish Chauhan submits that appropriate directions may be issued to Respondents 2 and 3 for processing the Petitioner’s MEIS applications in respect of 174 shipping bills within a time-bound schedule.

¶25

Ms Ganoo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that unless shipping bills are transmitted online to the DGFT server, it is not possible for DGFT to process the same.

¶26

Mr Mishra who appears for the 5^th Respondent submits that the 5^th Respondent has now manually allowed the amendment and has written to the DGFT about proceeding with the Petitioner’s MEIS application.

¶27

1 Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2022 decided on 13 January 2023

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX

¶30

Mr Chouhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, places on record a communication to say that in addition to the manual correction, even correction in the electronic form has been carried out. In any event, he relies on our decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.² to submit that the DGFT cannot refuse to process the MEIS applications for reasons not attributable to the Petitioner.

¶31

We have considered the rival contentions and are satisfied that the issues raised in this matter are covered by the decisions in Technocraft Industries (supra) and Larsen & Toubro Limited (supra).

¶32

Accordingly, there is no justification for the DGFT not processing the Petitioner’s MEIS applications with respect to the 174 shipping bills due to some systemic glitches, which appear to have now been largely resolved.

¶33

In Larsen & Toubro (supra), in somewhat similar circumstances, we were constrained to make the following observations at paragraphs 24 and 26, which read as follows:-

¶34

“24. Artificial intelligence cannot be at the cost of mortgaging human intelligence entirely. Technology is to serve the people and not to place booby traps and make life extremely difficult for the people. It is otherwise. If there are some gaps in the existing handling systems, bonafide parties cannot be made to suffer. The human element endowed with discretion and reason must step in. The officials operating such systems, or the officials tasked with implementing the law and the Government schemes, cannot abdicate responsibility, raise their hands, deny legitimate relief or make parties run from pillar to post and ultimately the Courts to get their dues. The officials who handle technology must deal with matters with the sensitivity and intelligence that the situation requires.

¶35

2 Writ Petition No. 3667 of 2024 decided on 13 November 2024

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX

¶38

The DGFT cannot adopt an attitude that its technological systems are not geared to deal with such situations and that its officials will not deal with such situations. Human and artificial intelligence must join to serve the people and achieve ease of business and not be at loggerheads. Suppose any party is entitled to any benefits under the law or under the schemes formulated by the Government to promote exports or trade. In that case, such benefits must not be denied or unduly delayed by citing technological glitches or the fact that the current electronic systems meant to assist the implementation of the law or operation of such schemes are inadequate or need revamping. What the law grants cannot be denied or unduly delayed by technology meant only to assist in implementing the law. If such an approach continues, the claims of leveraging technology to serve the people or ease of doing business will remain paper slogans.”

¶39

Considering the decisions in Technocraft Industries (supra) and Larsen & Toubro (supra) and applying to the facts of the present case, we direct the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent to process Petitioner’s MEIS applications with respect to the 174 shipping bills as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within six weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents must communicate their decision to the Petitioner within six weeks.

¶40

The Rule is made absolute in the terms without any costs order.

¶41

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶43

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Bfn Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bfn Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Eagle Security and Personnel Services through Sole Propritetor Veena Chittersen by Poa vs Union of India,through the Secretary,Ministry of Finance (Revenue)

Dsv Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. Successor to Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1

Dsv Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. Successor to Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1

Nimesh Sharad Shah vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 20 1

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd. vs Union of India

Dungraram Purohit vs Union of India