Rioben International vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rioben International vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2015

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                                1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

       WRIT PETITION No.24471 OF 2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Rioben International,
No.141, I Floor,
R.V.Road, V.V.Puram,
Bangalore and earlier at:
No.53, Dr. Mekri Layout,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore 560 027,
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. Shantilal Jain.
                                            ...PETITIONER

(By Shri Chandrashekara .K, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Union of India,
       Represented by its Secretary,
       Ministry of Industry and Commerce,
       Udyog Bhavan,
       New Delhi 110 011.

2.     The Joint Director General of
                                 2




      Foreign Trade, Kendriya Sadan,
      6th Floor, C and E Wing,
      Koramangala 2nd Block,
      17th Main Road,
      Bangalore 560 034.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri R. Sharath Chandra, Advocate)
                           *****

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash office memorandum
dated 3/6.2.2012 vide Annexure-A as illegal and void and etc;

      This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:

                           ORDER

The learned Senior Advocate Shri Kiran S Javali, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition is filed in respect of grant of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme and also seeks to challenge the suspension of Importer and Exporter Code (IEC). The challenge pertains to the orders of seizure of the year 2000 and therefore, the petition itself is rendered redundant insofar as the DEPB Scheme benefit is concerned and would submit that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed insofar as grant of 3 DEPB Scheme benefit is concerned. In respect of the challenge in so far as IEC is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that there is indeed a confusion as regards the claim actually made and whether it was in the proper form and would seek to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the matter by filing a fresh application.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms as above.

Sd/-

JUDGE nv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court