GMR Hotels and Resorts Ltd is 100 % subsidiary holding company of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (for short referred to as GHIAL). Petitioner is one of the group companies of GHIAL. In recognition of exports carried out by the petitioner, competent authority issued Duty Credit scrips dated 4.7.2013 in all thirteen in number worth Rs.1,25,56,045/-, which can be encashed while importing goods specified in the Served From India Scheme. These scrips are transferable within the group company. Therefore, petitioner requested the Director General of Foreign Trade to permit utilisation of scrips by GHIAL. But he refused- Generally Duty Credit Scrips are not transferable but within the group companies, the said scrips can be transferred. While granting relaxation of conditions of non-transferability of Duty Credit Scrip within group companies, it has not put any further restrictions. Para 9.28 only deals with definition of term Group Company. On reading of this definition, it would mean that to qualify to be a group company, an enterprise must have minimum of 26% or more voting rights or in a position to appoint more than 50% of Board of Directors in another company. It does not envisage that the company which earned Duty Credit Scrips alone should hold 26 % or more voting rights or has power to appoint more than 50 % of Board of Directors in the other company. On a plain reading, neither the provision in para 3.12.7 nor definition in para 9.28 seeks to restrict transfer of Duty Credit Scrip from a group company to another company based on holding capacity as understood by the Director General of Foreign Trade. Chapter 3 and more particularly para 3.12 deals with incentive scheme for export of services and is a beneficial scheme. Such beneficial scheme must receive liberal construction. The petitioner company availed the SFIS and earned Duty Credit Scrips. When relevant provision does not impose any restriction on transferability of Duty Credit Scrips by invoking power of interpretation, Director General of Foreign Trade cannot introduce something which is not envisaged and impose an additional restriction. The Director General of Foreign Trade has only power to interpret the existing clauses but cannot seek to amend or alter the Foreign Trade Policy terms. The impugned decision amounts to altering the terms of Served From India Scheme and is in excess of power and jurisdiction vested in him. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2014 is set aside and second respondent is directed to receive served from India Duty Credit scrip No.09100566123 dated 4.7.2013 and transfer the same in favour of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited in terms of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, if necessary by extending the period of validity for a further period of six months from 3.1.2015. -2015 A.P.(2014)MSKLAWREPORTS

  GMR Hotels and Resorts Ltd is 100 % subsidiary holding company of GMR Hyderabad
International Airport Limited (for short referred to as GHIAL).  
Petitioner is one  of the group companies of GHIAL.
 In recognition of exports carried out by the petitioner, competent authority issued Duty Credit scrips dated 4.7.2013 in all thirteen in number worth Rs.1,25,56,045/-, which can be encashed while importing goods specified in the Served From India Scheme.  
These scrips are transferable within the group company.  
Therefore, petitioner requested the
Director General of Foreign Trade to permit utilisation of scrips by GHIAL. But he refused-

Generally Duty Credit Scrips are not transferable but within the group companies, the said scrips can be transferred.
While granting relaxation of conditions of non-transferability of Duty Credit Scrip within group companies, it has not put any further restrictions.
Para 9.28 only deals with definition of term Group Company.
On  reading of this definition, it would  mean that to qualify to be a group company, an enterprise must have minimum  of 26% or more voting rights or in a position to appoint more than 50% of Board of Directors in another company.
It does not envisage that the company which earned Duty Credit Scrips alone should hold 26 % or more voting rights or has power to appoint more than 50 % of Board of Directors in the other company.
On a plain reading, neither the provision in para 3.12.7 nor definition in para 9.28 seeks to restrict transfer of Duty Credit Scrip from a group company to another company based on holding capacity as understood by the Director  General of Foreign Trade.  
Chapter 3 and more particularly para 3.12 deals with incentive scheme for export of services and is a beneficial scheme.
Such beneficial scheme must receive liberal construction.
The petitioner company availed the SFIS  and earned Duty Credit Scrips.
When relevant provision does not impose any restriction on transferability of Duty Credit Scrips by invoking power of interpretation,   Director General of Foreign Trade cannot introduce something which is not envisaged and impose an additional restriction.  
The Director General of Foreign Trade has only power to interpret the existing clauses but cannot seek to amend or alter the Foreign Trade Policy terms.   The impugned decision amounts to altering the terms of Served From India Scheme and is in excess of power and jurisdiction vested in him.        
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2014 is set aside and second respondent is directed to receive served from India Duty Credit scrip No.09100566123 dated 4.7.2013 and transfer the same in favour of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited in terms of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, if necessary by extending the period of validity for a further period of six months from 3.1.2015. -2015 A.P.(2014)MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more