9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner the decision taken in the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Foreign Trade, of denying Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) "if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority" as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition of course also impugns the minutes of the said meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and seeks a direction to the respondents to give the DEB to the petitioner, which during the hearing was disclosed to be in the value of Rs. 72 crores. 2. Though the petition, as per the Roster of this Court, was listed before the learned Single Judge, but finding that the challenge is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed in Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110. However, the present is not a case of illegal recovery of tax or other monies by the Government. We are concerned with the denial by the Government of a monetary benefit to which the petitioner claims to be entitled. Thus Article 113 would apply, which prescribes limitation of three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. There is no doubt that the right to sue in the present case accrued on 21st March, 2011 when the claim of the petitioner for DEB was rejected. The challenge thereto could have been made within three years i.e. on or before 20th March, 2014. The present petition has been filed after more than one month therefrom. We may further add that the distinctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e settled principle of law (See S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. (1989) 4 SCC 582 followed by the Division Benches of this Court in judgment dated 7th August, 2012 in LPA No.559/2012 titled Indian Hydraulic Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. NDPL and in judgment dated 30th January, 2012 in W.P.(C) No.586/2012 titled Rifleman Ram Bahadur Thapa Vs. UOI and in T.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Director General of Audit MANU/DE/2127/2011 and Karnataka Power Corp. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322) that repeated representations and rejection thereof neither extend the period of limitation nor is a satisfactory explanation of the delay. 5. The counsel for the petitioner except for drawing attention to the letter dated 20th September, 2011 is not able to show any plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be measured and on Tilokchand Motichand supra laying down that the extraordinary remedies under the Constitution are not intended to enable the claimant to recover monies, the recovery of which by suit is barred by limitation and that where the writ remedy under Article 226 corresponds to a remedy in an ordinary suit and the latter remedy is subject to the bar of a statute of limitation, the Court in its writ jurisdiction acts by analogy to the statute, adopts the statute as its own rule of procedure and in the absence of special circumstances imposes the same limitation on the summary remedy in writ jurisdiction. We find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
