03 December 2010
Supreme Court
Download

UNION OF INDIA Vs M/S. PRINCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES

Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-004585-004585 / 2005
Diary number: 19946 / 2004
Advocates: V. K. VERMA Vs YASH PAL DHINGRA


1

        Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 4585  OF  2005  

Union of India and others .. Appellants  

-versus-

M/s. Prince Rubber Industries  .. Respondent   

   J U D G M E N T  

MARKANDEY KATJU,  J

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the  

Division  Bench  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  at  Chandigarh  dated  

19.01.2004.

2. The facts of the case have been stated in the  impugned judgment of the  

High Court and hence we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary.  

3. The Writ Petition in the High Court was filed for quashing the order dated  

23.03.2001 of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade.  By the aforesaid  

order dated 23.03.2001 the Deputy Director General  wrote to the Writ Petitioner  

(the respondent herein) that its claim for grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support  

1

2

premium against  the  advance  import  licence  under  the  scheme  funded  by  the  

Reserve Bank of India cannot be allowed as the scheme had been closed since  

1994.   

4. By the impugned judgment  the High Court has quashed the letter dated  

23.03.2001 and directed release of the grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support  

premium against advance import licence as per circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993  

along with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum.

5. We see no infirmity in the impugned judgment.  

6.  Under circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993 the application for relief was to be  

made by 31.07.1993.  

 7. The High Court has held that the Writ Petitioner (respondent herein) had  

applied on 26.07.1993.  Hence its application was within time.  The concerned  

authorities failed to take necessary action on the application of the Writ Petitioner,  

and their inaction cannot be a ground for denying the claim of the Writ Petitioner.   

8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.  No cost.

……..……………………….J. [Mararkandey Katju]

………………………………J. [Gyan Sudha Misra]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 03,   2010

2