SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., A.K.Sarkar, J.R.Mudholkar, N.Rajagopala Ayyangar, S.K.Das, JJ.
Sinha Govindji
Versus
Deputy Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports
Case No. : 307 , 308 of 1960
Date of Decision : 3/23/61
Advocates Appeared: Dhebar R.H. : Gagrat J.R. : Gopalakrishnan G. : Mehta Porus A. : Sen T.M. : Umrigar H.J.
S.K.DAS, J.
(1) THESE are two writ petitions in respect of two orders dated August 3, 1960, by which the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Madras, cancelled two import licences, Nos. A 863296 and 836640 dated January 18, 1960, and February 2, 1960, respectively, granted in favour of the petitioner, Messrs. Sinha Govindji of Bangalore Road, Bellary, for the purpose of importing cellulose nitrate sheets of the value of Rs. 75,000 each for two licensing periods, April/September, 1959, and October/ March, 1960. The complaint of the petitioner firm is that respondents 1 and 2 have cancelled the licences in circumstances which amounted to a denial of its right to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as provided by cl. 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, before the impugned orders were passed and thus arbitrarily and without authority of law deprived the petitioner of its fundamental right to carry on its business under Art. 19 of the Constitution.
(2) THE point for decision is a short one and we need only state such facts as bear upon that point. The petitioners case is that the proprietor of the firm is a citizen of India carrying on a business of the manufacture of celluloid and plastic bangles, etc., at Bellary in the Mysore State. The petitioner was granted the two licences referred to above and thereafter entered into firm commitments for the import of cellulose sheets to the value of Rs. 99,000. On March 4, 1960, the petitioner was surprised to receive two letters from the Assistant Controller of Imports, Madras, calling upon the petitioner to let him know the extent to which the licenses had been utilised and asking the petitioner not to enter into fresh commitments against the said licenses without specific and prior approval of the Controllers office. This led to some correspondence between the petitioner and the Control authorities, details whereof are not necessary for our purpose. On May 27, 1960, the petitioner received two notices, only one of which we need set out in full. It stated:
"IT is hereby notified that in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. 9 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry propose to cancel licence No. A 836640/60/AU/M dated the Second February, 1960, valued at Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) for import of Cellulose Nitrate Sheets from the Soft Currency area except South Africa, granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras to Messrs. Sinha Govindji, No. 18, Bangalore Road, Bellary-2, unless sufficient cause against this is furnished to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, within ten days of the date of issue of this notice, by the said Messrs. Sinha Govindji, No. 18, Bangalore Road, Bellary-2 or any Bank, or any other party who may be interested in it. In view of what is stated above, Messrs. Sinha Govindji, Bellary or any Bank, or any other party who may be interested in the said licence No. 836640/60/AU/M dated Second February, 1960, are hereby directed not to enter into any commitments against the said license and return it immediately to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. (Sd.) J.K.Sarkar, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports."
(3) THE notices, be it noted, did not state on what grounds -falling within cl. 9 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, it was proposed to cancel the licences of the petitioner. Clause 9 of the Control Order states four grounds for cancellation of a licence, and we may read the clause here omitting those grounds which are not relevant for our case:
"9. Cancellation of Licences: The Central Government or any other officer authorised in this behalf may cancel any licence granted under this Order or otherwise render it ineffective: (a) if the licence has been granted through in-advertence or mistake or has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation;
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.