Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 August, 2006

Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 February, 2011

38. The facts in Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India were that a ban was imposed on the export of chickpeas with effect from 22nd June 2006. On that date, the Finance Minister announced the ban to the Press soon after the Cabinet Meeting on Pricing. The electronic media reported the ban on 22nd June 2006 itself. The newspapers of 23rd June 2006 prominently reported the ban. However, the formal notification of the ban on the export of chickpeas was issued under Section 5 FTDR Act only five days later on 27th June 2006. A second notification was issued on 4th July 2006 purporting to amend the earlier Notification dated 22nd June 2006. By the said amendment it was announced that transitional arrangements notified under W.P.(C) Nos. 8406 to 8408, 8590, 8627 & 8548 of 2010 Page 32 of 49 Para 1.5 of the FTP shall not be applicable for export of pulses against irrevocable LCs opened on or after 22nd June 2006 "as the decision of the Government prohibiting the export of pulses was announced and got widely publicized on 22.6.2006 in the electronic and print media."
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Asian Food Industries vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 September, 2006

5.1 Referring to Paragraph No. 9.12 of the Handbook of Procedures, it was submitted that the opening portion of the said Paragraph specifically talked of reckoning date of shipment/dispatch for the purpose of export and thus disadvantage could only be in relation to the advantages specified in Chapter Nos. 4 and 5 of the Foreign Trade Policy. That no other disadvantage like suffering of damages etc. on frustration of the contract would form a valid ground to carve out an exception. He submitted that the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on 18-8-2006 in W.P. (C) Nos. 11691-11692 of 2006 & CM. No. 8807 of 2006 between Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., was also therefore, not applicable on the facts of the case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2007

Mr. Kaul referred to the judgment of this Court in Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India where a challenge to a notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) by way of a writ petition by a company located in Mumbai was entertained. However, as has been pointed out in the said judgment itself, a substantial portion of cause of action arose in Delhi since the notification under challenge was issued by the DGFT in Delhi and all representations were made to and considered by the authorities in Delhi. Therefore, the judgment in Agri Trade India Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra), cannot come to the assistance of the petitioners herein.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sesame Foods Private Ltd. vs Union Of India & Others on 2 February, 2010

In that case the deemed export benefit („DBK‟) shall be admissible in terms of para 8.3 of the Policy and the same can also be claimed by the EOU on the basis of disclaimers from the DTA suppliers in terms of para 6.11 of the Policy. Further, if no AI Rate exists on the product namely sesame seeds, the Development Commissioner, NSEZ can fix up a brand rate for refund of all applicable duties (customs/excise), levies, cess etc., as admissible under the DBK Rules." It is submitted that the attempt by the Respondents to apply the foreign trade policy (FTP) which was applicable only prospectively, and to deny the benefit of deemed export duty drawback to which the Petitioner was legitimately entitled, was unjust and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 132 (2006) DLT 500.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

J.P. Construction Private Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 February, 2011

Mr Sengupta appearing for the Airports Authority of India has taken the preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He has relied on my decisions dated July 16 & 20, 2009 in W.P. No. 7030(W) of 2007 (Heiza Boilers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.); December 14, 2010 in W.P. No. 1550 of 2010 (Agri Trade India Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.); and January 19, 2011 in W.P. No. 22106 (W) of 2010 (SRRAK-REIPL JV & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

M/S Paramount Wire And Cable Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 October, 2018

For Petitioner(s) : Shri P.K. Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Shri Siddharth Ranka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 22/10/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgements of this Court in Palecha Trade Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India-2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 351 (Raj.) and Narain Prasad Gattani vs. UOI & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1459/2013 dated 4.10.2017.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1