9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Denial of cash incentives under an export assistance scheme. - Entitlement of petitioners to benefits of the cash incentive scheme. - Withdrawal of the scheme by the first respondent. - Estoppel from denying benefits under the scheme. - Examination of contracts for eligibility for cash compensatory support. Analysis: The judgment by Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. of the Bombay High Court dealt with a case where the petitioners, manufacturers and exporters of cotton ready-made garments, were denied cash incentives under an export assistance scheme announced by the first respondent, Union of India. The scheme provided cash assistance on the F.O.B. value of cotton goods exported, including ready-made garments. The petitioners had entered into contracts with foreign buyers based on this scheme but were denied benefits due to the withdrawal of the scheme from January 1, 1979. The court referred to previous judgments by other judges in similar cases where it was held that petitioners who had entered into contracts prior to the withdrawal of the scheme were entitled to the benefits promised under the scheme. The court agreed with these judgments and found that the petitioners in the present case had entered into contracts at lower prices due to the promise of cash assistance under the scheme. Therefore, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to cash assistance for contracts concluded before January 1, 1979, even if the exports were made after that date. The judgment set aside the decision of the first respondent denying cash compensatory support to the petitioners and directed the respondent to examine each contract mentioned in the petition to determine eligibility for cash assistance. The court ordered the first respondent to grant cash compensatory support for contracts entered into before January 1, 1979, within six months. The second respondent was dismissed from the petition as they acted on behalf of the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to pay the petitioners' costs. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that they were entitled to the benefits of the cash incentive scheme for contracts concluded before the withdrawal of the scheme, despite the actual exports occurring after the withdrawal date. The judgment highlighted the principle of estoppel and the obligation of the first respondent to honor commitments made under the scheme.
|
