9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of bond cancellation and redemption under Export Promotion Scheme. 2. Requirement of establishing deposit in Government treasury for refund. 3. Delay in disposing of appeal against bond forfeiture. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay addressed the case concerning two bonds provided by the petitioner as security for obligations under the Export Promotion Scheme. The first bond, amounting to Rs. 32,550, was initially forfeited due to the petitioner's failure to meet export obligations. However, upon subsequent evidence of compliance, the bond was deemed redeemed, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund. The respondents contended that the petitioner needed to prove the deposit of the bond amount in the Government treasury before claiming a refund. The court noted that evidence from the Mercantile Bank and the Assistant Chief Controller confirmed the deposit, making the petitioner's entitlement clear. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner had to establish the deposit separately, emphasizing the Union of India's obligation to refund the amount. Regarding the second bond worth Rs. 50,085, an appeal against its forfeiture was pending since 1978. The court directed the expeditious disposal of this appeal within eight weeks. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, ordering the respondents to refund the Rs. 32,550 within the specified timeframe and to resolve the pending appeal related to the second bond promptly. The respondents were also instructed to bear the costs of the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of honoring commitments under the Export Promotion Scheme and the necessity for timely and fair resolution of disputes related to bond forfeiture and redemption.
|
