Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing S.B.International Limited Etc vs Asstt. Director Of General Of F.T. & ... on 24 January, 1996

Adani Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 April, 2000

In the aforesaid case of Sonia Fisheries, (1997 (68) ECR 796) on behalf of the petitioners, with regard to the contention of vested right of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of S. B. International Limited v. Asstt. Director General of FT reported in 1996 (8) CXLT (sic) (SC) MISC-1 : (AIR 1996 SC 2921), and in that case the Apex Court observed that it is the date of licence that is relevant and not the date of application therefor. It is obvious that the norms (value addition norm) in vogue on the date of grant of licence shall govern the licence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Emjey Enterprises vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 29 January, 1998

25. The decision of the Supreme Court in S.B. International Ltd. v. Asstt. Director General of F.T. (1996) 2 SCC 439 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is not of much assistance. The case deals with the right of an applicant to obtain a licence. No doubt, the Supreme Court has observed that the policy is statutory in nature, but the observation was made on the facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madura Coats Private Ltd vs The Director General Of Foreign Trade on 28 February, 2014

In S.B.International Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Director General of F.T., reported in 1996 (2) SCC 439, it has been stated that it is a facility, provided by the Government, being an incentive, there is no right to advance licence apart from the policy. No citizen has a fundamental right to import, much less import free of duty. The said decision relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India governs the case on hand as well.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Coromandel Mining & Exports Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Union Of India & Others on 11 September, 2015

33. In this connection, we would like to refer to some more judgments of the Supreme Court where similar contentions were raised, considered and addressed. 33.1 In S.B. International Limited v. Assistant Director of General of F.T.( ) the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar situation, as has arisen in this batch of writ appeals. The question was whether a vested right accrued to the appellant for issuance of advance licences as per the value addition norm in vogue on the date of filing of the said applications the moment it made those applications and whether any subsequent change in policy effected before issuance of licences, is not applicable to such licences? The question arose in the backdrop of the facts that the appellant in this case, who was engaged in export of mine products, had made five applications for advance licences in May, June and September, 1992. Advance licences were not issued by September 25, 1992. On that date, a change was effected in the value addition norm, enhancing the value addition norm to 1900% from 1000%. Licences were issued according to this enhanced value addition norm in February, 1993. The appellant thereafter protested against the application of revised/enhanced value addition norm on the ground that since it had applied for advance licences prior to September 25, 1992, the change brought about on and with effect from the said date has no application and that its application ought to be governed by value addition norm in force prior to September 25, 1992. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the question, in paragraphs 8 and 8-A, observed thus:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 92 - Cited by 6 - S V Bhatt - Full Document

Mr. Abhishek Rai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2016

within the competence of the Parliament to frame a law and the statute since is in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, such law cannot be declared to be ultra vires Constitution, merely because it has changed the methodology in allocating/granting mineral concessions. It is further urged that the legislation since have the protective umbrella of Article 31A(1)(e) of the Constitution, the same cannot be struck down on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 of the Constitution. As to the contentions regarding accrual of vested right, it is urged that merely because the application having been carried through various stages and availing of in-principle approval for grant from the appropriate Govt., the same, however does not culminate into a vested right as would be protected under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of Amendment Act, 2015. Furthermore, Article 299 of the Constitution is pressed into service to bring home the submissions that unless a contract is entered into in terms thereof, there is no accrual of right even with passing of an order regarding in-principle approval. It is urged that it is only on an execution of a contract in the manner provided under Article 299 of the Constitution, any right accrues in the applicants. Reliance is placed on decisions, to bring home these submissions, in S.B. International Ltd. and Ors. vs. Asstt. Director General AIR 1996 SC 2921 (Paragraphs 5, 8, 8A and 9), State of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. :: 25 ::
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 157 - S Yadav - Full Document
1   2 Next