1989 (3) TMI 291 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to additional licenses for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81.
2. Compliance with the order dated 17-12-1986 by V. Ramaswami, J.
3. Alleged contempt of court for non-compliance with the High Court's order.
4. Validity and conditions of the issued additional licenses.
5. Request for stay of the High Court's order pending appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Additional Licenses for the Years 1979-80 and 1980-81:

The respondent, M/s. Rashi Leather Private Limited, filed W.P. No. 4683 of 1984 seeking a mandamus for the issuance of additional licenses for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had canceled the Export House Certificate on 22-9-1984 due to alleged false representations. To quash this cancellation, the respondent filed W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. Both writ petitions were allowed by V. Ramaswami, J. on 17-12-1986, entitling the respondent to the additional licenses as prayed for.

2. Compliance with the Order Dated 17-12-1986 by V. Ramaswami, J.:

Despite several communications from the respondent requesting compliance with the judgment, the appellants did not issue the licenses in accordance with the terms of the judgment. This led to the respondent filing Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987. The appellants issued additional licenses on 7-4-1988, but they did not conform to the Import and Export Policy for the relevant years. The respondent requested modifications, which were not made, prompting further legal action.

3. Alleged Contempt of Court for Non-Compliance with the High Court's Order:

The respondent filed Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987, alleging disobedience of the court's order. The then learned Officiating Chief Justice Mr. S. Ratnavel Pandian directed the appellants to re-issue the licenses with specific modifications within four weeks. The appellants failed to comply, leading to further contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court, in W.P. No. 117 of 1989, directed the respondent to approach the High Court for enforcement of its orders.

4. Validity and Conditions of the Issued Additional Licenses:

The licenses issued on 7-4-1988 contained conditions contrary to the High Court's order. The respondent requested the deletion of specific conditions, arguing that the licenses should be issued as per the policy in existence for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The appellants' response and subsequent actions did not address these requests adequately, resulting in continued non-compliance.

5. Request for Stay of the High Court's Order Pending Appeal:

The appellants filed an application on 3-10-1988 for the condonation of delay in filing writ appeals and sought a stay of the High Court's order. The respondent opposed the stay, citing the appellants' conduct and the pending contempt application. The court found that the appellants had not made a genuine attempt to comply with the order and displayed a lack of diligence and bona fides. Consequently, the stay petitions (C.M.P. Nos. 972 and 973 of 1989) were dismissed to prevent rewarding the appellants' lack of compliance.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the stay petitions due to the appellants' failure to comply with the court's order and lack of bona fides. The respondent's entitlement to additional licenses as per the policy years 1978-79 and 1979-80 was reaffirmed, and the appellants were directed to comply with the modifications ordered by the court.

← Previous Next →