UNION OF INDIA versus T. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 21-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA
v.
T. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 2036-2038 of 2011)
AUGUST 21, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR and DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992: s.20
– Import of goods by Obron in August, 1997 – After coming into
force of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992,
import of stated goods was no way prohibited under that Act – Action
taken against the respondents founded on order dated 14.11.1986
passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers conferred
by Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 qua LD Textile
– On appeal, held: The provision of the Act in no manner save the
quasi-judicial order – Moreso, when it had the effect of continuing
prohibition regarding the import of goods otherwise made free and
could be imported under the 1992 Act – Any other interpretation
would result in validating the quasi judicial order issued in exercise
of powers derived from the Statutory Order which itself stands
repealed alongwith the repealed Act – In other words, the quasi
judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the legislative intent
behind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect of the stated goods
was made free and an open regime – A fortiori, no action against
the respondents in relation to import of stated goods after coming
into force of the 1992 Act with effect from 17.08.1992, in reference
to the order dated 14.11.1986 could be resorted to in law – High
Court dealt with this contention exhaustively and justly concluded
that the show cause notice issued against the respondents on the
basis of order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14.11.1986
cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny – No interference is required
– For, a quasi judicial order passed in exercise of powers under the
Statutory Order which stands repealed along with the repealed Act,
is not saved especially when it will be per se repugnant to 1992 Act
and defeat the spirit of opening of the import regime for the stated
goods.
278
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 278
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2036-
2038 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2007 of the High Court
of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 810, 812 and 814 of 2001
Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta and B. Krishna Prasd,
Advs. for the Appellants.
V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumara, Aaditya
Bhattacharya, Ms. Monica Kasturi, M. P. Devanath, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The action taken against the respondents was founded on order
dated 14.11.1986 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of
powers conferred by Clause 8 (1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986
qua M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd.
3. It is not in dispute that the import of goods by Obron Impex
(Pvt.) Ltd. was in August, 1997. After coming into force of the Foreign
Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’), indisputably, import of stated goods is in no way prohibited
under that Act.
4. If so, the appellants must demonstrate that the Act provides for
a savings clause to save the quasi judicial order passed by the Competent
Authority in exercise of powers bestowed in it in terms of Imports
(Control) Order, 1986.  The provisions of the Act as rightly noted by the
High Court, in no manner save the quasi judicial order. Moreso, when
it had the effect of continuing prohibition regarding the import of goods
otherwise made free and could be imported under the 1992 Act. Any
other interpretation would result in validating the quasi judicial order
issued in exercise of powers derived from the Statutory Order which
itself stands repealed alongwith the repealed Act.  In other words, the
quasi judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the legislative
intent behind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect of the stated
goods has been made free and an open regime.
5. A fortiori, no action against the respondents in relation to import
of stated goods after coming into force of the 1992 Act with effect from
UNION OF INDIA v. T. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
17.08.1992, in reference to the order dated 14.11.1986 could be resorted
to in law. The High Court has dealt with this contention exhaustively
and, in our opinion, justly concluded that the show cause notice

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