$~14

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6824/2021 & CM APPL. 21488/2021

NIAGARA METALS INDIA LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. V. N. Koura, Ms. Paramjeet

Benipal and Mr. Shaurya Dahiya,

Advs. versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with

Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya and Mr. Rajkumar

Maurya, Advs.

Mr. Zoheb hossain, Spl Counsel for DoE with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, panel Counsel for DoE along with Mr. Paranjal Tripathi, Mr. kartik sabharwal and Mr. Kanishk Maurya

Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

1. Mr. V. N. Koura, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court through the order-in-original dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Development Commissioner and the order-in-appeal dated 08.01.2021 by Director General Foreign Trade [‘DGFT’] and points out that there is no allegation made by the respondents against the petitioner of making or attempting to make an export and import in contravention of the Foreign

Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 or Rules or orders made thereunder.

2. He also places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Embio Limited v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ors. and draws the attention of the Court to paragraph no.6 thereof, which is extracted as under:

“In 2007, a Writ Petition was filed by the Karnataka Biotics before the High Court of Karnataka to challenge the demand for penalty. On 24-3- 2009, Karnataka Biotics amalgamated with Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited under the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, a certificate of incorporation for the change of the name of Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited to M/s Embio Limited (appellant herein) was issued. The Writ Petition filed by Karnataka Biotics was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The respondents challenged the same by filing a Writ Appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal by granting permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with the liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, presumably in view of the amalgamation.”

3. Additionally, he places reliance on the decision of Division bench decision of this Court in the case of Dencap Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Addl.

Dir. General of Foreign Trade²

4. If the impugned orders are perused in the context of the enunciation of law laid down in the case of Embio Limited, it would prima facie appear that no such findings of violation of the export and import are recorded therein, against the petitioner.

5. To this, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, prays for time to take instructions as to whether the appeal can be reheard in the context of the submissions made by the petitioner.

6. List on 11.03.2026.

1 (2024) 6 SCC 633

7. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 13, 2026/P/MJ

2 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1507