TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioners entitled to cash assistance under Export Assistant Scheme pre-1979 withdrawal</h1> <h3>VIBGYOR TEXTILE INTERNATIONAL Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that they are entitled to cash assistance under the Export Assistant Scheme for Cotton Textiles for ... Export Assistance Scheme for Cotton Textiles Issues:Entitlement to cash assistance under the Export Assistant Scheme for Cotton Textiles for a specific period.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the entitlement of petitioners to cash assistance under the Export Assistant Scheme for Cotton Textiles for a defined period. The petitioners, who are manufacturers and exporters of cotton ready-made garments, entered into contracts based on the cash assistance provided under the Scheme. The central issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to the cash assistance for contracts entered into before the Scheme's withdrawal from 1st January 1979. The court examines the circular announcing the Scheme and the subsequent withdrawal, emphasizing the detrimental impact on the petitioners due to the withdrawal post-contract agreements.The court deliberates on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, emphasizing that the petitioners relied on the assurance given under the Scheme, leading to losses incurred upon export. The judgment highlights a previous case where a similar petition was allowed, asserting the petitioners' right to cash assistance for contracts concluded before the Scheme's withdrawal. The court dismisses the argument that the first respondent was justified in withdrawing the Scheme, emphasizing the petitioners' reliance on the representation for compensation of losses incurred through export contracts entered into before the withdrawal.Furthermore, the court rejects the contention that the first respondent was not obligated to maintain the benefits under the Scheme for a specified period, emphasizing the petitioners' reasonable reliance on the representation. The judgment quashes the decision to withdraw the Scheme for exporters with contracts concluded before 1st January 1979, directing the first respondent to examine each contract to determine eligibility for cash assistance within six months. The first respondent is ordered to pay costs to the petitioners, affirming the petitioners' entitlement to the cash assistance under the Scheme for contracts entered into before the withdrawal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
