M/S Indian Rayon And Industries Limited vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Indian Rayon And Industries Limited vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2009

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

{N THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, EANGALOEEEQ
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY 01:' JANUARY, 20%; ,

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAM.,MQ}§A1$é R'§.%?1:::53'.'.'_;_  

WRIT PET'£TION N0.119{}5 of? 2Q{)é'J{c;'M«_i'R:éis;«'%  

BETWEEN;

M/S. me: am RAYON AND INi)U_$T"RI_ES» LIMI'i'E_{) 
MGHOUSE .   "   
110,4TH <:Ross,5'I'H SLQGK,  T V _ 
KORAMANGALA §NDUSTR§E&L L;?{f(3U'_£T',  . j 
KORAMANGALA, .1-3'LGRE-~.9SV. '  
RERBYITS v:c:E:.;:>1*~e.EsI;1:>aNf1i«:  _  :
sHR1.vsR1K§é_1s2;:ixe'A;4.'V    
     ~--  *  PETITIONER

(BY Sm. ~GJsAi}iI:kA'i§;;wss3$.; 'SUf%ES¥§"f\STAKAR
3;-._ 13 ANI'L;s;u:v:_»aR--,.;;;EE'rHA 81; LAKSHMI
K':;M--ARzw_ &*«'s%R;TI)-Ema, ADV)

AND:

 1 ..4.51..%V1;'~31~£>r~: OxF"i.NI3IA',

" 'i'I~'£i?O'{§GH ITs"S;EC,RE*mRY
 _ f¥£II'~E.I:3-'Ifié€~'Y_QP' TEXTILES,
V _ 'G:}szEvR'I«:.2s4_;aNT- OF INDIA,
. " -._i;51"')-':::~(; '}3§~{AVAI\i,
' NEW DELHI -- no 011. -

 - T'I:iF;. DIRECYOR GENERAL,

A  A§jPAREL EXPORT PRQMOT§ON COUNCKL,
.V 4'"'NBCC TOWER, 15, BH§KAJ§ CAMA PLACE,
' "NEVJ BELHI - 119 056. E
wk

vA/



3

the month of October 2004, which aﬂecteé the  

business on account of cancellaision of the US5  ' 

customers. One another reason, ae set out in Paztzgigzfeagh' 25

of the memorandum of Wm: petitiozfl; for not  {he *

quota before 31»12-2004 is  tlﬁe  etieeiegr V

of M/s. Marks 35 Spe:(}cer;"'é1'e cuetomef which
postponed the orders 3005 instead of
November] Qeoemoer   the petitioner
Uiﬁmatﬁly  :€:i2$>vfa'11V'a11otted to it by

F €¥)£'l1.a1_'§r   

  of Bank guarantee for the

113:1de:.uti11'zeti ;fevaIid.:§i;eei"'.E;Luotas fiuring 208-4 when made

  proof of""s"i}ipme:1ts, the 3" responéent issued a

  dated 19--04--2005 proyosing forfeituxe of

toe Veiitire  Guarantee of Rs.58,40,640/- on the ground

'uhthai the  pe*£:i£:3Lo11er did not utilize the entire allotted quota.

A was responded to by letter dated 2»~OS--2(}(}5 of the

 petitioner inter aka contending that major part of the

  could not be exported to customers in UK, Italy,

Germany, eta, on account of Tsunami and that the

M



10
time, pcztiiiou was directed to be listed today for di,§:.t.--:~.;ﬁng

jtldgnient.

1 I. warned counsel for the: p€fL}:'[Ji4.':):1'1(3?¢",'--,:  M

contcnding that thﬁ order of the Appeﬂam  

{ream the vice of violation of principies   

not extencijlxg a fair oppodcaﬁiﬁf of" h§:am';:{g..:  1io:1-- "

consiglezation of relcvazli; }33at€1jj3l,uV::ad_dS» ﬁhe.qm3:?{a }30}_3'(;y
circuiar daied i2:'"S--01«2v{L}u()§ the date as
15-01-2005

is urgztfasonabiﬁ lééﬁnspnance with the quota p;'ol.ia§=iy. counsel, the out off dais ;1uri:t:1g .F'ebrI.1ary 20035 to enabie: A<:AV1Vt.1ji»:si1;z->e.V_ ~.tQ tide over the difficulties due to devasiaﬁca Caused bj;? T$i1ZLé13ii.

.»}€12.L'~Per cbnira, Szgfi. N" Devadas, Ieaxneti Senior (Z'.O1;tI}.S€I fb1'«ﬂ_1t: ftﬁapaﬁéents points out to the contents of the iettcr A:mexuI*r:«"'F" addressed by the petitioner to Apiieiiéte Committee, expmssing SiI1C€I'€ gratitude for W Gpportunjty 1:0 put forth its case in the healing . of thc': appeal, to contend that the first conterzmion of the M 11 petitioner must fail. It is next contended that Appellate Committee having hazard the petiti<3:1ér.. ' 2005, pmceeded to pass the oxderzhiof "W" and did neither postponeﬁlae of c')rL1e1"°:zi{.&";r "» permit the petitie11er to file dccximentsvh 0f the: hﬁaring. Accordingzmf '5'.'g('ZIli($i"' V{3o1'i71v":1scI, the contentien of the petitio¥1€:Vj:';_'t;'r1§«§1Lt. xmclssed to the letters dajiied .V13:§:..1~2(§e"S;' ivanci 8--1i2~2(){}:"5 Annexur&~"Lf""_i;'1§¢;iAA~--é«:,f*§¢f 't£e ()I'Cif§1" Anncxure-- W, not iJ)€:i_ng_ not considered by the authorﬁjyf, , .. hsxétsns to add that had the peti-tiozmré at the time of hearing the a'§.1'$1EL€).I'i{y'V hive had an opmrtunity to consider 'vﬂzczrﬁi; lfaclvuxxzfissziizaie, ané rccerci reasons, fiiidglngs and Acor1r;£usi<::j:1«s5" Ev;-:1 ethexwise, Iearmzé Senior counsel points; out 59 ~ré;5j:11i€:3:1ts of the documents enciosed to the saici ietfiszxﬁﬁto contend that the cieci$ion of the cusiomers in or ths agent of the petiiioner in Gertnany to ..._"v""p-Ofatpone the dcspatch of the goods to January 2095, Cannot u ce:3z1st;it12te fame-majeure. It is next coxztended that the quota 12 poﬁcy circular dated 25-{}1»2(}O5 Anncxure~"J"' emanatod as a rosult of the representations neceived from large_4v§9oi:¥.;§*~Vof customor associations and in oxtier to eXtc:11d_.~*§imf:" . oustomero nnabie to despatoh thejf goods""io.:T£I1é"w.cn:i:'f:' extent of the quota, on or before Contra} Government oxtentioé 'ispto Lnaznod counsel points out oopios. 'V£:h.€VVi§iﬂVGiC€S enclosed to the potiﬁoft¢r's 21'-"o1V§V2o0<9 to contenti that tho petitiownor despatch the goods by $621 to petitioner it is contendeci Vavailable documents of to 15~{)1~2OG5, was extende%i.«L§:1o it,'J.e. circular Annexure-"J" and such, of 1Z1'V'1\{§~{:,§>;V'(i;cj$'f§j3.';1A'AI;i'T"}':\:€3:{'~§bhV made after IS~--O1~2005, were < an unuti1iz'édv--.g;:;ota.

V V the loanled, Conn-so} for the parties, potgnnd 'vL_I*1.£:'v»n:};13:_1:§::ac1ings, documents and examined the orders 'vgmpngn-Ljtng. indisputably, the petitionar secured quotas under

A v~?_:noV[Q'*oota Policy for export of garments on the condition that 33330115 shouid be compietod within tho time stipulatosti M 13 therein. Undoubtedly, the petitioner did not expert ' in entirety" under the quota aﬂottedi .to,__4hut_'?-ﬁiikiv' ' It is true that Tsunami hit the S011"-*:11e1jb.e eoast of caused severe damage to life __pm§er'Qf on T2;3A~A=§_:;}..¢2Q(}3A, a _ > eozadition constituting ieconven_ieﬁee ten the which when coesidexed. by issued the circular A11nex12re_-"K" exI:efi_(iing compietion of the export; _1:f.,i1e3_ 31.12.2004 to 15.01.2003; required to comgzalete the _f1%v1VlVWcv1u0ta on or befere 1503-

2005, the opportunity', cannot be heard . to ce'1:1fei1(£...?{hei'i fixing of the cut eff date as V' 'is; unfeéisbnabie. I eay so for yet auether reason, iieiiher the cut 03 date nor the circular A:m;1ex"ure--

'J' ' ca1_1etie:'i_b£: question in this writ petition. By merely 'x_>I"EiiS3§13.g~~ gjround witheut seeking a relief to quash the A fl' that contention deserves to be rejected.

14. There is considerable force in the submission of VV the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner was extended a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing before the M 14 Second Appellate Committee. The petitiener, by Annexure~"'I'", confirmed that it was extended ' of hearing by the Second Appe11at_e....Cemm_1i{ee" ' hearing of the appeal on 16-1 1-200:5. '.f"he:Vc6nte:):ﬁct:iV ieaxneti counsel for the petitioéi_e'£,_V to ee1:;t1*¢1if§%,AVV.:;s«--vsa?ir13out 2 L' merit.

15. :2 is 110 douuézizc t2§e.;':;~;:i':a,:.¢ dated 15-11- 2005 AnnexureV--5'3.:V"v..wa,=§:' ta the petitioner on the very. S.éme1A:edéa;yVVb.i;i__ :.\a.?g;s"«"d'§5;t1£3V_ only duﬁng the year 2006. "£1t}i?l.!';';§1g more, it cannot be presu.me_<§i that.£f§e':'Seeefiti_fXp;:eI1ate Committee did not pass the order 6.1; contemtion that one of the authQ§i'if.iee vthe: petitioner to extend and revalidate by stating that the appeal was pending of Textﬂes, as on 13436-2006, A11I1eXu1e~ _ "V", 'no i.;::iez*e':1ce can be drawn that the Second Appeliate did not pass the order An3:1exure--W 011 16-11-- _ "E§...AA'«That contention too must necessarily fail. M 16 which rttlianccz is placeci by the petitizaner to 0ffOI'CE~B}ajf:1J£I'€ condition, pri2ru1fcac'ié,"is¢o§"_n0 _.a=.SSi.~i;_i;¢z;1':::é; Lgxoliing at it from any angle; ijqgipuggnéd 1 cannot be: charactsrised as 'vé:iii_ft:);t:1*_ without application of mind by 'itizg In thé 1V;e-suit, the writ paiition is without mam; a<--r'e<§z'<*3[_ii1g£y, rejected. Sd/1' Iudgié KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court