1988 (1) TMI 188 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of relief on a notice of motion by the learned judge.
2. Allegations of contravention of terms and conditions of an agreement and Import Trade Control Policy.
3. Action taken under clause 8B of Appendix 2 of the Imports Control Order, 1955.
4. Challenge against the actions of the respondents through a writ petition.
5. Compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Supreme Court in Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India.
6. Granting of interim relief and subsequent abeyance order under clause 8B.
7. Delay in completing the inquiry against the appellants.
8. Entitlement of the appellants to interim relief.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the refusal of relief on a notice of motion by the learned judge. The appellants had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for the purchase of edible oils, which led to allegations of contravention of terms and conditions of the agreement and Import Trade Control Policy. The action was taken under clause 8B of Appendix 2 of the Imports Control Order, 1955. A writ petition was filed challenging the actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

2. The single judge initially rejected the writ petition, stating that the action had been taken under clause 8B and not under clause 8A as alleged. However, the appeal court directed the 1st respondent to provide all orders passed against the appellants under relevant clauses. The appeal court found that there had not been proper compliance with the requirements set by the Supreme Court, leading to the admission of the appellant's appeal and setting aside of the order of summary rejection.

3. The subsequent proceedings involved the appellants seeking interim relief, which was initially denied by the learned judge. The delay in completing the inquiry against the appellants was noted, and assurances were made regarding the completion of the inquiry within a specified period. However, the inquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time frame, leading to the court considering the appellants' business interests and granting them interim relief.

4. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the order was substituted to direct the 2nd respondent to supply the allocated quantity of edible oil to the appellants. The 1st respondent was instructed to make orders of allocation in favor of the appellants for subsequent months, with a specified timeline for compliance. No costs were awarded in the judgment.