9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat we have to set out the facts at some detail as otherwise the core of the matter cannot be appreciated. 2. The respondent herein (M/s. Rashi Leather Private Limited) had filed W.P. No. 4683 of 1984. The prayer in that writ petition was one for a mandamus for the issue of additional licence to the respondent for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Alleging that on certain false representations, the Export House Certificate had been obtained, the said certificate was cancelled by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. This was on 22-9-1984. To quash the order dated 22-9-1984, the respondent had filed W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. It requires to be stated at this stage that the appellants did not choose to file any counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. Both the writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984 came to be heard together by V. Ramaswami, J. as he then was. The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by his judgment dated 17-12-1986. A copy of the judgment was obtained by the respondent on 6-1-1987. The result of the judgment is that the respondent would be entitled to additional licence as prayed for in his writ petition for mandamus, namely, W.P. No. 468 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984, page 13, para 7 reads as follows: W.P. No. 10162/84 is accordingly allowed and the order of cancellation of the Export House Certificate dated 22-09-1984 is set aside. There could be no doubt that if the order of cancellation is illegal and would not be accepted, the petitioner is entitled to an additional licence prayed for in W.P. No. 4683/84. Accordingly, W.P. No. 4683 is also allowed as prayed for. It is therefore clear that the Additional Licences should be issued, as per the policy in existence for the year 1978-79 value Rs. 28,27,770/- and for the year 1979-80 value Rs. 24,15,305/-. Hence, the words containing after Import Trade Control Policy Book should be deleted from the Licences. We request you to kindly send a separate letter stating that these words have been deleted and that they do not apply to the Licences No. 2440956 and 2440957. We request you to take immediate action and send us the amendment to enable us to go ahead with the Import of the items. Thanking you, On receipt of this, a reply emanated from the appellants-petitioners to the following effect on 13-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Basha relates to the words that occur in conditions 1 to 3 of both the licences which read thereof made up to and including the date of issue of the licence." The learned counsel wants the above words in the conditions 1 to 3 to be deleted and it should read as as stood for the policy year 1979-80 as far as the additional licence for the policy year 1979-80 is concerned and as far as 1980-81 is concerned also it should read as as stood for the policy year 1980-81 . The respondents could have no valid objections for the modifications sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence the additional licences will be re-issued to the applicant in terms of the modifications indicated above within four weeks from the date of surrender of the present licences to the respondents. The contempt proceedings are dropped."... 5. Pursuant to this order, in the hope of getting the alterations as directed, the respondent on 29-8-1988 returned the licence for the purpose of re-issue. Four weeks time reckoned from the date of issue of the order expired on 25-9-1988. Finding that the order could not be complied with, the appellants-petitioners took out a sub-application in Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court. .... Therefore, the respondent was obliged to file a second contempt application No. 83 of 1989. That was admitted by one of us on 24-2-1989 and notice has been ordered to the petitioners-appellants returnable by 7-3-1989. It is under these circumstances, the appeals as well as the applications for stay have come up before us. 8. Having regard to the controversy, we are inclined to admit the appeals and they are accordingly admitted. 9. However, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners strongly pleads for grant of stay stating that but for grant of stay, the entire appeals would become infructuous. He would add that should this court be pleased to admit the appeals, a short stay might be granted and the appeals themselves may be taken up for final disposal any time. Though this request appears to be innocuous and there should be no difficulty in granting the same, justifiably based on the facts and circumstances which we have set out at some length Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would emphatically submit that having regard to the conduct of the appellants, they have disentitled themselves to the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such reservation was asked for. Now to say for the reason that the licence was issued as per the policy of the year of issue and not the year of dispute, appears to us as though a drowning man seeking to clutch at the straw or to wriggle out of the situation brought about by the lack of diligence at every stage in the contempt matters. Why we say that there was lack of diligence is that apart from not filing a counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 10162 of 1984, there was no such reservation asked for before the learned single Judge. 12. Even after the order of the learned Officiating Chief Justice granting four more weeks further time, not a little finger was raised. Therefore, we find that there was total lack of BONA FIDES. To say the least, somehow the respondent had been deprived of its hard-earned fruits of judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., which had stood the test of time, repeatedly approved and approbated both in the order made in the contempt applications as well as in the order of the Lordships of the Supreme Court. For these reasons, these are matters in which there cannot be any stay as that would put a premium on lack of diligence and lack of BONA FIDES on the part of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
