Delhi High Court - Orders
Putzmeister Concrete Pumps Gmbh And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1185/2024 & CM APPL. 71163/2024 (Stay)
PUTZMEISTER CONCRETE PUMPS
GMBH AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sagar Chawla, Mr. Rohin
Dubey, Ms. Jasleen & Ms.
Shweta Yadav, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Siddharth, Mr. Aryan
Dhaka & Ms. Ira Singh, Advs.
for R- 1 & 2.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl.
Counsel with Mr. Vivek
Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal,
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr.
Kanishk Maurya & Mr. Kunal
Kochar, Advs. for Resp./ ED.
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Ruchi Agrawala, Mr.
Rajesh Vaidya, Mr. Aditya
Bapat, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. P.
Agarwalo & Mr. Aaroon
Menon, Advs. for R-5-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 11.12.2024 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/12/2024 at 01:46:52
1. Notice. Since the respondents are duly represented, let a reply be filed within a period of three weeks from today, if so chosen and advised. The petitioner shall have two weeks therefrom to file a rejoinder affidavit.
2. Let the appeal be put down for final disposal on 31.01.2025.
3. Prima facie, we find merit in the challenge which stands raised to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and who has come to the conclusion that the ex-post facto approval granted by the erstwhile Foreign Investment Promotion Board ["FIPB"] on 29 September 2010 was violative of the principles of natural justice. This conclusion is based on the fact that the composition of the Sub- Committee which had heard respective sides was different from the composition of the FIPB which finally granted the ex-post facto approval. We find that the learned Single Judge has himself noticed that the Sub-Committee had only framed a recommendation on 04 August 2010 for the consideration of the principal body, namely, the FIPB. Prima facie, therefore, it may not have been strictly pertinent for the composition of the body to remain the same. We doubt the applicability of the precept of "he who hears must decide" being applicable.
4. We also bear in consideration the fact that in terms of the Office Memorandum of 06 June 2017, the FIPB itself had come to be abolished. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we would have to examine the validity of the directions framed by the learned Single Judge and the exercise which is required to be undertaken by a freshly constituted committee and that too when the FDI investment in respect of the activity in question is no longer subject to prior approval. The matter requires consideration.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/12/2024 at 01:46:52
5. We, accordingly, and till the next date of listing, place the impugned judgment in abeyance.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2024/kk This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/12/2024 at 01:46:52