9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export licences for the export of ready-made garments. Mr. Rawal, appearing for the 1st respondent, however, stated that the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as the respondent , is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It is not necessary to go into that controversy for the disposal of this petition. 3. However, it is admitted that the respondent is entrusted with the implementation of a policy for the control and regulation of export trade in respect of certain items. In the present case, the respondent, whose name is Apparels Export Promotion Council, is, as its name implies, concerned with the export of readymade garments or apparels. The Policy Statement dated 11th of November, 1978 set out that 60 per cent of the total quotas would be granted for the first half of the year, i.e. for the period January to June 1979, and 40 per cent would be allocated during the second half of the year, namely July to December 1979. The petitioners applied for certificates, which are hereinafter referred to as the quota certificates , some time in the month of December 1978. This application was made on behalf of the petitioners in ant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contractual obligations, because they had entered into contracts. However, part of the quotas allotted to them remained unutilised. The Textile Commissioner in Bombay desired that details of the shipments effected under FCFS ready goods should be supplied so that the matter could be taken up with the Ministry of Commerce. Two forms were enclosed along with this circular. One form was proforma A which required a statement showing shipments effected under FCFS ready goods, while proforma B required the details of Letters of Credit and/or contracts cancelled due to late receipt of quota certificates. 6. Purporting to act pursuant to this circular, the petitioners submitted a letter on 15th of February 1979, filling up the forms as required by the circular of 3rd of February 1979, and submitted the same to the respondent. This was subsequently followed by some reminders, but on 10th of October 1979, the respondent addressed a letter to the Manager of the Mercantile Bank at Bombay, who had, as the Policy required, given two guarantees for the due performance of the commitments pursuant to the quota certificates obtained by the petitioner from the respondent. The petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in the issuance of the quota certificates itself was, as already mentioned earlier in the judgment, on account of the stay orders issued by some of the High Courts. 8. The third question that arises is whether the respondent is under any obligation either under the Policy which governs the issue of the quota certificates or under any guidelines issued by the Government for the implementation of the said Policy or, as at some stage argued by Mr. Advani, on the principle of promissory estoppel. 9. Several arguments have been advanced on behalf of both the sides. Mr. Rawal, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, has contended that the petitioners have not demonstrated that there is any obligation on the part of the respondent to return the bank guarantees in the admitted non-performance of the obligation by the petitioners pursuant to the quota certificates. I have gone, with the assistance of the learned Advocates, through the Policy for the year 1979, which has been annexed as Ex. A to the petition. It has not been possible for me to find from this any obligation on the part of the respondent to return the bank guarantees or to relieve art expbrter from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Rawal, it is easily seen that in those cases where the exporters took certain steps in order to save their contracts by substituting the ready-made goods for the contractual goods which they would have been otherwise required to export pursuant to the quota certificates, it was thought that certain steps regarding relieving them from forfeiture as per the policy decision were to be taken. In the case of the petitioners no such action was taken by them to meet their contractual obligations. This was because the petitioners did not have any contractual obligations. Admittedly, no contracts had been entered into when the petitioners received their quota certificates on 24th of January 1979 because earlier they had already been told by their agent in Italy that the customers in Italy had cancelled their orders. The petitioners were aware that their quota certificates had become ineffective and, therefore, they made some attempt to redeem their losses by requesting Mr. Ferrari to persuade the customers in Italy to reconsider their decision, but this was of no avail. In my opinion, therefore, the circulars of 3rd of February 1979 and 12th of February 1979 are of no assistance to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een any affidavit-in-reply to this petition either on behalf of the first two respondents or on behalf of the 3rd respondent, which is the Union of India. That itself, in my opinion, is not a sufficient ground for directing that the respondent should not act upon the bank guarantees given on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Sarjit Singh s designation has not been mentioned in the petition, nor has it been shown that he was authorised to hold out any promise on behalf of the respondent. Thirdly, Mr. Sarjit Singh could not give in law any promise which would be inconsistent with the Policy Statement governing the rights and obligations of the parties. For these reasons, I am reluctant to hold that the respondent are under any obligation not to act upon the bank guarantees. 15. Mr. Rawal had initially raised a preliminary objection that the 1st respondent is neither a State nor any statutory body which is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since I went into the merits of the position, I have not thought it fit to decide that question. 16. It is hoped that merely because the petitioners have filed this petition and have not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
