Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim cash assistance and replenishment benefits from the date of submission of tender and to have the notifications dated 6 December 1975 and 5 November 1979 applied retrospectively.
Analysis: The contract was accepted before the notification dated 6 December 1975 and therefore the petitioner could not invoke that notification to claim a later beneficial date for determining cash assistance. The governing regime was the earlier public notice dated 8 December 1969, under which the relevant date was the date when the contract was finally concluded, not the date of tender submission. The later public notice dated 5 November 1979 was expressly prospective and could not reopen concluded contracts or confer retrospective benefit. The petitioner had also been informed of the appellate remedy under the Handbook of Rules and Procedure, but elected to pursue the writ petition instead.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to retrospective application of either notification and was not entitled to cash assistance or replenishment benefits from the date of tender submission.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express retrospective effect, policy notifications governing export incentives apply prospectively and do not alter the terms of concluded contracts.