9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaking and has been designated as a canalising agency for carrying out a policy outlined in the Import and Export Policy for the year 1982-83 under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Import of one of the items which had to be canalised through the 2nd respondent was Aluminum Ingots. Petitioner No. 1 required the said Ingots as an Actual User for the manufacture of utensils. It applied for and obtained an allotment as set out in the delivery note at Exh. A. The quantity allocable to the 1st petitioner was 56.385 metric tonne for a price of Rs. 18,679/- per metric tonne. A clause appearing in the sale note reads thus :- For quantities indicated in clauses 2(b) and (c) above, price will be notified later. The buyers shall accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and the MMTC was concluded on 1st March 1984 when the delivery note was drawn up. The payments were already made as required and it was not open to the MMTC to take advantage of the subsequent revision in the price. The object of the petition is to get Exhibits B C quashed. Petitioner had obtained interim relief in terms of prayer (e)(ii) which is to the effect that it be allowed to clear the balance of the ingots without payment of the enhanced price. 4. Respondents inclusive of MMTC have not filed a return. Learned Counsel representing the MMTC contends that the clause from the delivery note reproduced above entitled his client to claim the benefit of the enhancement in the price. This question came up for consideration before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livery note to the petitioners and the petitioners have actually sought delivery of the goods long prior to the date on which the retention prices were increased, it is not permissible for respondent No. 1 to demand increased price for their own fault in not handing over delivery. It is not in dispute that the delivery was not made for no other reason but because of the instructions received from Delhi that the prices are likely to be increased in a short period." Learned Counsel contends that in the instant case it cannot be said that the petitioner though willing to take delivery was refused the same, and this, on account of any instructions received from the headquarters of the MMTC. In the petition there is an averment which speaks of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
