TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut necessary, though these are interlocutory applications, that we have to set out the facts at some detail as otherwise the core of the matter cannot be appreciated. 2. The respondent herein (M/s. Rashi Leather Private Limited) had filed W.P. No. 4683 of 1984. The prayer in that writ petition was one for a mandamus for the issue of additional licence to the respondent for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Alleging that on certain false representations, the Export House Certificate had been obtained, the said certificate was cancelled by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. This was on 22-9-1984. To quash the order dated 22-9-1984, the respondent had filed W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. It requires to be stated at this stage that the appellants did not choose to file any counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. Both the writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984 came to be heard together by V. Ramaswami, J. as he then was. The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by his judgment dated 17-12-1986. A copy of the judgment was obtained by the respondent on 6-1-1987. The result of the judgment is that the respondent would be entitled to additional licence as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The other sentences should be deleted from the licences. As per the order of the Madras High Court dated 17-12-1986 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in the writ petition Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984, page 13, para 7 reads as follows: "W.P. No. 10162/84 is accordingly allowed and the order of cancellation of the Export House Certificate dated 22-09-1984 is set aside. There could be no doubt that if the order of cancellation is illegal and would not be accepted, the petitioner is entitled to an additional licence prayed for in W.P. No. 4683/84. Accordingly, W.P. No. 4683 is also allowed as prayed for." It is therefore clear that the Additional Licences should be issued, as per the policy in existence for the year 1978-79 value Rs. 28,27,770/- and for the year 1979-80 value Rs. 24,15,305/-. Hence, the words containing after Import Trade Control Policy Book should be deleted from the Licences. "We request you to kindly send a separate letter stating that these words have been deleted and that they do not apply to the Licences No. 2440956 and 2440957. We request you to take immediate action and send us the amendment to enable us to go ahead with the Import of the item....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the period 1979-80 at present reads as "as per para 174/1 of Chapter 18 of Import Policy for April-March, 1979-80". Mr. Basha wants the sub-paragraph (1) of para 174 to be deleted so that it covers the entire paragraph 174. So also the licence for the period 1980-81 at present reads as "as per 177/1 of Chapter 18 of April-March, 1981 Import Policy". Mr. Basha wants the sub-paragraph (1) of para 177 to be deleted so that it could cover the entire paragraph 177. "Yet another grievance of Mr. Basha relates to the words that occur in conditions 1 to 3 of both the licences which read "thereof made up to and including the date of issue of the licence." The learned counsel wants the above words in the conditions 1 to 3 to be deleted and it should read as 'as stood for the policy year 1979-80' as far as the additional licence for the policy year 1979-80 is concerned and as far as 1980-81 is concerned also it should read as 'as stood for the policy year 1980-81'. The respondents could have no valid objections for the modifications sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence the additional licences will be re-issued to the applicant in terms of the modifications in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to issue additional licences as per the orders of this court. The Supreme Court passed the following order on 8-2-1989. "...If the order of the High Court has not been obeyed, it is open to the petitioner to approach the High Court for enforcing its orders. If the High Court declines to enforce its order, it is permissible to the petitioner to approach this court by filing a special leave petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition under Art. 32 is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to move the High Court.".... Therefore, the respondent was obliged to file a second contempt application No. 83 of 1989. That was admitted by one of us on 24-2-1989 and notice has been ordered to the petitioners-appellants returnable by 7-3-1989. It is under these circumstances, the appeals as well as the applications for stay have come up before us. 8. Having regard to the controversy, we are inclined to admit the appeals and they are accordingly admitted. 9. However, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners strongly pleads for grant of stay stating that but for grant of stay, the entire appeals would become infructuous. He would add that sh....