Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M/S. PRINCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES

Decided
3 December 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2010] 13 S.C.R. 1187 · 2010 INSC 847

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 19.01.2004.

p. 1188, margin D

2

The facts of the case have been stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court and hence we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary.

p. 1188, margin E

3

The Writ Petition in the High Court was filed for quashing the order dated 23.03.2001 of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade. By the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2001 the Deputy Director General wrote to the Writ Petitioner (the respondent herein) that its claim for grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support premium against" the advance import licence under the scheme funded by the Reserve Bank of India cannot be allowed as the scheme had been closed since 1994.

p. 1188, margin F

4

By the impugned judgment the High Court has quashed the letter dated 23.03.2001 and directed release of the grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support premium against advance import licence as per circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993 along with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum.

pp. 1188–1189, margin G

5

We see no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

p. 1189, margin A

6

Under circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993 the application for relief was to be made by 31.07.1993.

p. 1189, margin B

7

The High Court has held that the Writ Petitioner (respondent h~rein) had applied on 26.07.1993. Hence its application was within time. The concerned authorities failed to take necessary action on the application of the Writ Petitioner, and their inaction cannot be a ground for denying the claim of the Writ Petitioner.

p. 1189, margin B

8

Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No cost. N.J. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1189, margin D