https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78684 The court directed the refund of the balance of the forfeited EMD with interest, recognizing the petitioner's entitlement to relief for errors and administrative failures resulting in the bank guarantee amount's forfeiture. The court found the petitioner's claim maintainable under Article 226, contrary to the respondent's contentions, and rejected the disputed claims for EMD dating back to 1985 and 1989 as belated and involving factual disputes. The claim for damages and compensation was dismissed for being inadequately pleaded and not suitable for examination under Article 226, with no costs imposed on the petitioner. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:53:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78684 The court directed the refund of the balance of the forfeited EMD with interest, recognizing the petitioner's entitlement to relief for errors and administrative failures resulting in the bank guarantee amount's forfeiture. The court found the petitioner's claim maintainable under Article 226, contrary to the respondent's contentions, and rejected the disputed claims for EMD dating back to 1985 and 1989 as belated and involving factual disputes. The claim for damages and compensation was dismissed for being inadequately pleaded and not suitable for examination under Article 226, with no costs imposed on the petitioner. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78684