Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ge T & D India Ltd. (Previously Known As ... vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 26 February, 2020

Author: M.S. Karnik

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.S. Karnik

                                       1                     6. WP 3045.19.doc

JPP


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 3045 OF 2019

GE T & D India Ltd. (Previously known as
Areva T & D India Ltd.)                             ... Petitioner

         V/s.

Union of India and Ors.                             ... Respondents

Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner
Mr. Pradeep Jetly a/w. Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondents 2 and 3
Mr. Atul Singh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4


                                    CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                           M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 26 FEBRUARY 2020.

P.C. :-

The Petitioner has amended the Petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the relevant portions of the Foreign Trade Policy, more particularly the provisions governing the issuance of Importer and Exporter Code which is mandatory for import/export to and from India. He has also drawn our attention to the maintenance of ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 00:14:55 ::: 2 6. WP 3045.19.doc importer/exporter profile which is supposed to be a database of the address and other information. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the database is updated by the Petitioner in respect of the advance license then all subsequent correspondence, notices, etc. should be upon the addresses updated on the importer/exporter profile. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that inspite of updating the profile, the notice, as per the contention of the Respondents appears to have been sent to the address which is deleted from the profile. The learned Counsel for the Respondents contend that the notice has been sent as per the record available with the Respondents in the address given in advance license.

3. On the contention raised by the Petitioner regarding necessity of a maintenance of Central database, a reply affidavit on the part of the Respondents is necessary more particularly, on the issue whether the communications and notices, etc. should be sent by all departments as the updated importer/exporter profile, or it is still necessary for importer/exporter, even after updating the database to inform each and every department of the change in address.

4. Reply to be filed before the next date. Stand over to 26 March 2020.

     M.S. KARNIK, J.                               NITIN JAMDAR, J.




     ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 00:14:55 :::