9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he non-grant of time extension to which the Petitioner was otherwise entitled - Petitioner will be refunded the balance of the forfeited EMD in the sum of Rs. 46,627/- together with interest at 12%. - 4594 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2010 - S. Muralidhar, J. Shri T.S. Sawhney in person, for the Petitioners. Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - The prayer in this writ petition is for a mandamus to the Respondents "to pay a sum of Rs. 29,32,660/- to the Petitioner with interest @ 24% p.a. with quarterly rest till final realization of money". 2. Pursuant to the notification dated 31st August, 1990 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles regarding a scheme for exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent submitted falsely before the NCDRC that the Petitioner had failed to execute the export orders within the extended time of 31st May, 1991. 5. The Petitioner refers to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1941 of 1994 filed by him in respect of 3000 dresses meant for export to the USA in respect of which also 40% bank guarantee was forfeited. By an order dated 5th October, 2006, the learned Single Judge of this Court held categorically that the AEPC was in error in not endorsing the shipping documents because of which the extension till 31st May, 1991 was not granted to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner could not be penalised for it. It was held that once a policy was applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ECR 343 (Bom.). 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 AEPC points out that the present claim is not maintainable in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Orient Enterprises, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that in view of the law laid down in the earlier decision in Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1740 such a petition under Article 226 for payment of a claim of money with interest was not maintainable. 9. This Court finds that in a similar petition and arising out similar facts in relation to the export of 3000 dresses to the US, the Petitioner's Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1941 of 1994 was allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g before the writ petition was filed. There is a claim of Rs. 22,820.75 for a transaction of 1st January, 1985, a claim of Rs. 15,810/- for which the Petitioner claims to have submitted proof of shipment dated 21st August, 1989, claims of Rs. 34,737/- and Rs. 60,025/- for which the Petitioner claims to have surrendered his quota by letter dated 20th September, 1989. These are of course disputed by the counsel for the Respondents. This court finds that apart from the claims being belated, the entitlement of the Petitioner to such claims is a disputed question of fact which cannot possibly be examined in the present writ petition. 13. The Petitioner's claim for damages and compensation is also vague. The pleadings in this regard are inadequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
