GMR Hotels and Resorts Ltd is 100 % subsidiary holding company of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (for short referred to as GHIAL). Petitioner is one of the group companies of GHIAL. In recognition of exports carried out by the petitioner, competent authority issued Duty Credit scrips dated 4.7.2013 in all thirteen in number worth Rs.1,25,56,045/-, which can be encashed while importing goods specified in the Served From India Scheme. These scrips are transferable within the group company. Therefore, petitioner requested the Director General of Foreign Trade to permit utilisation of scrips by GHIAL. But he refused- Generally Duty Credit Scrips are not transferable but within the group companies, the said scrips can be transferred. While granting relaxation of conditions of non-transferability of Duty Credit Scrip within group companies, it has not put any further restrictions. Para 9.28 only deals with definition of term Group Company. On reading of this definition, it would mean that to qualify to be a group company, an enterprise must have minimum of 26% or more voting rights or in a position to appoint more than 50% of Board of Directors in another company. It does not envisage that the company which earned Duty Credit Scrips alone should hold 26 % or more voting rights or has power to appoint more than 50 % of Board of Directors in the other company. On a plain reading, neither the provision in para 3.12.7 nor definition in para 9.28 seeks to restrict transfer of Duty Credit Scrip from a group company to another company based on holding capacity as understood by the Director General of Foreign Trade. Chapter 3 and more particularly para 3.12 deals with incentive scheme for export of services and is a beneficial scheme. Such beneficial scheme must receive liberal construction. The petitioner company availed the SFIS and earned Duty Credit Scrips. When relevant provision does not impose any restriction on transferability of Duty Credit Scrips by invoking power of interpretation, Director General of Foreign Trade cannot introduce something which is not envisaged and impose an additional restriction. The Director General of Foreign Trade has only power to interpret the existing clauses but cannot seek to amend or alter the Foreign Trade Policy terms. The impugned decision amounts to altering the terms of Served From India Scheme and is in excess of power and jurisdiction vested in him. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2014 is set aside and second respondent is directed to receive served from India Duty Credit scrip No.09100566123 dated 4.7.2013 and transfer the same in favour of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited in terms of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, if necessary by extending the period of validity for a further period of six months from 3.1.2015. -2015 A.P.(2014)MSKLAWREPORTS

  GMR Hotels and Resorts Ltd is 100 % subsidiary holding company of GMR Hyderabad
International Airport Limited (for short referred to as GHIAL).  
Petitioner is one  of the group companies of GHIAL.
 In recognition of exports carried out by the petitioner, competent authority issued Duty Credit scrips dated 4.7.2013 in all thirteen in number worth Rs.1,25,56,045/-, which can be encashed while importing goods specified in the Served From India Scheme.  
These scrips are transferable within the group company.  
Therefore, petitioner requested the
Director General of Foreign Trade to permit utilisation of scrips by GHIAL. But he refused-

Generally Duty Credit Scrips are not transferable but within the group companies, the said scrips can be transferred.
While granting relaxation of conditions of non-transferability of Duty Credit Scrip within group companies, it has not put any further restrictions.
Para 9.28 only deals with definition of term Group Company.
On  reading of this definition, it would  mean that to qualify to be a group company, an enterprise must have minimum  of 26% or more voting rights or in a position to appoint more than 50% of Board of Directors in another company.
It does not envisage that the company which earned Duty Credit Scrips alone should hold 26 % or more voting rights or has power to appoint more than 50 % of Board of Directors in the other company.
On a plain reading, neither the provision in para 3.12.7 nor definition in para 9.28 seeks to restrict transfer of Duty Credit Scrip from a group company to another company based on holding capacity as understood by the Director  General of Foreign Trade.  
Chapter 3 and more particularly para 3.12 deals with incentive scheme for export of services and is a beneficial scheme.
Such beneficial scheme must receive liberal construction.
The petitioner company availed the SFIS  and earned Duty Credit Scrips.
When relevant provision does not impose any restriction on transferability of Duty Credit Scrips by invoking power of interpretation,   Director General of Foreign Trade cannot introduce something which is not envisaged and impose an additional restriction.  
The Director General of Foreign Trade has only power to interpret the existing clauses but cannot seek to amend or alter the Foreign Trade Policy terms.   The impugned decision amounts to altering the terms of Served From India Scheme and is in excess of power and jurisdiction vested in him.        
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2014 is set aside and second respondent is directed to receive served from India Duty Credit scrip No.09100566123 dated 4.7.2013 and transfer the same in favour of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited in terms of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, if necessary by extending the period of validity for a further period of six months from 3.1.2015. -2015 A.P.(2014)MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more