Disposed

M/S Bicycle Mfg. Corp. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2014CWP/10637/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a departmental order declaring the petitioner as a defaulter. Upon the respondent counsel agreeing that the matter should be reconsidered if certain documents were produced, the court directed the petitioner to approach authorities with requisite documents within 15 days before any coercive steps were taken.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach authorities with requisite documents within 15 days; no coercive steps to be taken till date.

M/S Bicycle Mfg. Corp. Vs Union of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 10637 of 1995

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 10637 of 1995 Date of Decision:Feb. 20,2014

¶5

M/s Bicycle Mfg. Corporation ,Ludhiana........... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India and others ............... Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner/s.

¶12

Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.5.1995 (Annexure P-22).

¶15

As per the policy of the respondents the petitioner was to get some benefits. After importing the goods the petitioner was to meet the export obligation imposed as per the advance licence (Annexure P1). The claim of the Kaur Rupinderpetitioners for grant of the difference between the import 2014.02.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

C.W.P. No. 10637 of 1995 [ 2 ]

¶17

and export obligations was not fulfilled and they could not produce any satisfactory evidence as per the conditions of the licence. They were declared as defaulters and were held disentitled for receiving any licence/relief under the Import Policy and they were directed to pay the liquidated damages amounting to `2090207/- and further directed to pay customs duty with 24% interest to the concerned Customs Authorities with the further direction to surrender the licence. By this order, liberty was granted to the petitioners that they could make the representation before the Grievance Committee constituted as per para 250 of the revised Hand Book of Procedures 1992-97. This order has been challenged by way of this writ petition. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Grievance Committee on 29.6.1995 (Annexure P-24). This writ petition was admitted on 12.3.1996.

¶18

At this stage, counsel for the respondent has informed the Court that the Grievance Committee had rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.1995 on the ground that the original export documents and DEEC book showing the relevant entries have not been produced before the Grievance Committee. It is agreed between the parties that if the petitioner appears before the Grievance Committee within a week then this order shall be considered afresh.

¶19

Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.W.P. No. 10637 of 1995 [ 3 ]

¶21

In view of the above, it is directed that the petitioner shall approach the Authorities within 15 days with the requisite documents as informed to him vide order dated 15.11.1995 and the respondents will take final decision. Till then, no coercive steps will be taken to enforce Annexure P22.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶24

20.2.2014 rupi

¶25

Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Bicycle Mfg. Corp. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bicycle Mfg. Corp. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) M/S a.K.Rubber Industry Vs P.S.E.B.

Neel Kanth Vs State of Hy.

M/S Amrit Rice and General Mills Vs Director Food and Civil Supplies, Pb. &a

Shree Durga Seeds Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dalbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S R K Pesticides Vs State of Punjab & Ors.