UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SUKSHA INTERNATIONAL AND NUTAN GEMS & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
\ 
• 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
SUKSHA INTERNATIONAL AND NUTAN GEMS & ANR. 
JANUARY 2, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 Section 3. 
Import Export Policy 1983. Paragraph 185(4) and (7)-lnter-
pretction of-Export Houses-Having imprest Licences-To import 
C 
goods from abroad with corresponding obligation attached to export 
goods-Fulfilling conditions and applying for revalidation and endorse-
ment of licence-Held clauses (4) and (7) form an integrated policy 
scheme and to be read together. 
Constitution of India. Article 226--Writ petition-Plea of 
unexplained delay in filing of writ petition raised-Held-High Court 
should specifically deal with such plea. 
Statutory Interpretation. Beneficial provision of statute-Not to 
be interpreted so as to unduly restrict the beneficial scope of the policy 
of the law . 
The respondents in the appeals were recognised Export Houses 
which had been granted Imprest licences for the import of 'uncut' and 
'unset' diamonds with certain export obligations attached to them. 
After the due discharge of the export obligations, the respondents 
became entitled to revalidation and endorsement of the said Imprest-
licence for import ofOGL items. 
The said Export Houses applied under paragraph 185(4) of AM-
83 policy for revalidation and endorsement of the· Imprest Licences. 
The appellant No. 3, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 
rejected this claim of the respondents. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection, respondents 
filed writ petitions in the High Court assailing the legality of the orders 
H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
A rejecting their claims, and seeking a mandamus to the appellants to ,,>or· 
endorse the Imprest Licences. 
B 
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, and 
the order was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench. 
In the appeals by the Union of India to this Court, it was con-
tended on behalf of the appellants that: (a) in the Import-Export Policy 
1982-83, the entitlement of Registered Export Houses to the facility of 
revalidation and endorsement of OGL items under paragraph 184 is 
/:--
' 
subject to and conditioned upon the express limitations contained in 
·t-~ 
clause (7) of paragraph 185 of the Policy, and that the High Court was 
c in error in directing revalidation and endorsement without reference to 
the mandatory prescription provided in the said clause, and (b) that the 
High Court was in error in ignoring the contentions of the appellants 
that the respondents had rendered themselves disentitled to relief on the 
ground of the inordinate and unexplained delay of one and a half years 
in the tiling of the writ petitions. 
D 
Disposing of the Appeals, the Court, 
HELD: l(a) Para 185(4) was intended to provide certain incen-
lives to the Export Houses which, upon grant of Imprest-Licences, fulfil 
their countervailing obligations in the matter of export commitments. 
E 
The provision is a beneficial one. [SH; 9A] 
l(b) Clauses (4) and (7), no doubt, on their plain wording present 
certain constructional difficulties, and it is possible to take the view 
that the said clauses are part of an integrated policy scheme, providing 
for certain incentives to export houses and have to be read together. 
F 
This view, however, will unduly restrict the scope of the beneficial 
provision. [9A, C] 
l(c) That the conditions in para 185(4) of the Policy would not be 
attracted to the case of Export Houses which are granted' Imprest 
Licences, would be a harmonious construction of clauses (4) and (7) 
G 
which appears to. advance and promote the objects of the policy in 
Paragraph 185( 4) and is, at all events, not an unreasonable view to take 
of the matter. [9B] 
l(d) An interpretation which would unduly restrict the beneficial 
scope of the policy in para 185(4), would take away with one hand what 
h the policy of the law gives with the other. I 9C I 
,_.y 
A. 
• 
~ 
• 
\ 
. :\-· 
• 
) 'f-·. 
-
U.0.l. v. SUKSHA INIBRNATIONAL [VENKATACHALIAH, J.) 
3 
2( a) If appellants had raised a specific plea of delay as a bar to the 
A 
grant of relief-nd the delays in the present cases, having regard to the 
nature of the subject-matter, were not inconsiderable-it was perhaps 
necessary for the High Court to have specifically dealt with the plea.· 
The aspect of delay adverted to by the Single Judge was a different one 
viz. the delay in seek

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.