https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43457 The Court found that the petitioners had fulfilled a significant portion of their foreign exchange obligations, with the shortfall attributed to respondent No. 2's delays in contract registration. Consequently, the Court deemed respondent No. 2's forfeiture of the bond as illegal. The petitioners succeeded in their claim, and the Court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:53:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43457 The Court found that the petitioners had fulfilled a significant portion of their foreign exchange obligations, with the shortfall attributed to respondent No. 2's delays in contract registration. Consequently, the Court deemed respondent No. 2's forfeiture of the bond as illegal. The petitioners succeeded in their claim, and the Court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43457