9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Mandamus sought for full "cash assistance" and "replenishment benefits" in respect of a contract placed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under IDA loan; Challenge to notifications dated 6th December, 1975 and 5th November, 1979 regarding applicability of benefits retrospectively. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, Siemens India Limited, sought mandamus to direct the Union of India to allow full "cash assistance" and "replenishment benefits" for a contract with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under an IDA loan. They challenged notifications from 1975 and 1979 regarding the retrospective application of benefits. The scheme aimed to promote indigenously manufactured goods and prevent foreign exchange loss. 2. The petitioner engaged in manufacturing and supply of electrical equipment. They submitted a tender to supply equipment for a water supply project financed through an IDA loan. The petitioner quoted lower prices considering export incentives, seeking confirmation of "cash assistance" availability. The contract was registered with the bank within the prescribed period. Changes in cash assistance rates led to disputes over benefit eligibility. 3. The government's decisions in 1975 and 1979 impacted the petitioner's benefit claims. The petitioner's contract was accepted before the 1975 notification, making it ineligible for retrospective benefits. The court found the petitioner was aware of the governing notification from 1969 and had received benefits based on the contract's conclusion date. The petitioner's claims were worked out as per the applicable policy, and no discrimination was found in benefit calculation. 4. The court highlighted that the notifications were not made retrospective to avoid changing crucial benefit determination dates in concluded contracts. The petitioner was informed of the appeal process but chose to approach the court instead. The court dismissed the petition after finding no merit, emphasizing that the notifications were not applied retrospectively, and no discrimination occurred in benefit calculations. 5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition without costs, stating that the petitioner had received benefits as per the governing policy and no discrimination was found in the benefit calculation process. The court upheld the government's decision not to apply the notifications retrospectively to maintain consistency in benefit determination dates for concluded contracts.
|
