Disposed

Tenneco Clean Air India v. The Union of India

Madras HC20 Aug 2024WP/10930/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of RBI's demand for late submission fees. The Additional Solicitor General submitted the demand would be withdrawn. The Court closed the writ petition with liberty to file compounding applications, finding nothing survived for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to file appropriate compounding application for delay. No costs.

Tenneco Clean Air India Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10930 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.10930 of 2020 and

¶7

WMP.Nos.13281 & 13284 of 2020

¶8

Tenneco Clean Air India Private Limited, Suite 305, Delta Wing, 3^rd Floor, Rajeha Towers, 177, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Pankaj Kapoor. ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶11

Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, Fort Glacis, 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶12

Bank of America, 8^th Floor, EA Chambers, Express Avenue, No.49, 50L, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 002. ...Respondents

¶13

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.10930 of 2020

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the part of the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.10.2019 levying late submission fees (LSF) of Rs.9,33,220/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Only) while granting Approval of Form FC-GPR filed by the petitioner and consequentially direct the 2^nd respondent not to proceed further as per letter dated 03.03.2020 and email dated 14.07.2020 of the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.D.Selvan Babu

¶18

For Respondents : M/s.N.K.Nithilavani, CGSC, for R1 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, ASG, for Mr.C.Mohan, for R2 for M/s. King and Patridge : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, for R3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional

¶21

Solicitor General appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, the demand under the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.10.2019 itself is going to be withdrawn within a period of one week and thereby, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ petition.

¶22

2/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.10930 of 2020

¶25

Recording the above submission made by the learned Additional

¶26

Solicitor General appearing for the 2^nd respondent, this Writ Petition stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate compounding application, if there is any delay. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

20.08.2024

¶28

skt Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶29

To:

¶30

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶31

Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, Fort Glacis, 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶32

Bank of America,

¶33

8^th Floor, EA Chambers, Express Avenue, No.49, 50L,

¶34

3/4

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.10930 of 2020

¶37

Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 002.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt

W.P.No.10930 of 2020

and WMP.Nos.13281 & 13284 of 2020

¶42

20.08.2024

¶43

4/4

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tenneco Clean Air India v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenneco Clean Air India v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Link Systems Private Limited Vs The Government of TamilNadu

L.Idhayavarman Vs the District Collector

Robusta (Hyglow Cafe), Vs The Commissioner of Police

Association of National Vs State of Tamilnadu

M.Baskar Vs Managing Director

Marappan Vs the District Collector