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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

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 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more