Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Hurmat Brass v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 70964 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5950 (18 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70964 of 2005

M/s Hurmat Brass Versus Union of India and others.


Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala,J

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, who has decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner and dismissed it  on the ground that the pre-deposit of penalty as required under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, has not been made while filing the appeal.

We have heard Sri Priyadarshi Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-11 to the writ petition which is the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner in which in prayer clause the petitioner has also prayed for dispensing with of the deposit of penalty apart from other prayers. According to him as the petitioner had made a request before the appellate authority for dispensing with the deposit of the penalty, the appeal could not have been dismissed for want of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. From the record we find that the petitioner for the reasons best know to him did not appear before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (appellate authority) in spite of several notices having been served upon it and, therefore, the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of pre- deposit of the penalty. Even in the memorandum of appeal in the last line in the prayer clause a request has been made which might have been over looked by the appellate authority as the petitioner did not appear.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to make an application before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade pointing out the mistake and if such an application is made the Additional Director General shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law after fixing a date in presence of the petitioner who shall appear on the date fixed. The Additional Director shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the aforesaid application expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order along with the copy of the application is filed before him. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.

In case, the appellate authority waives or relaxes the condition of pre- deposit of the penalty amount, it goes without saying that the order of dismissal of the appeal shall, as a consequence, be recalled.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.