M/S Magunm Ventures Ltd. v. Union Of India And ORS.

$-329, 330, 331, 332, 336 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.rCl 522/2018 and CM No. 2234/2018 HLS ASIA LIMITED & ANR Petitioners Through: Mr Amit Gupta and Ms Vidhi Goel, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through:

Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms Tejaswita, Advocate for UOI.

WITH + W.P.rCI 902/2018 and CM No. 3807/2018 HOTEL EXCELSIOR LIMITED Petitioner Through: Ms Malini Sud, Mr Vikas Mishra, Mr Shubhankar Sen Gupta and Mr Shashwat Tripathi, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ORS Respondents Through:

Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms Tej aswita and Mr Braj esh Kumar, Advocate for UOI.

WITH + W.P.rO 1026/2018 and CM No. 4309/2018 XEROS RESORTS AND HOTELS PRIVAT LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EROS RESORTS AND HOTELS LIMITED) Petitioner Through: Ms Malini Sud, Mr Vikas Mishra, Mr Shubhankar Sen Gupta and Mr Shashwat Tripathi, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENER.\L OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ORS.

Respondents Through:

Counsel (appearance not given).

WITH + W.P.ICI 1936/2018 and CM No. 8042/2018 By:AMULYA

ABERCROMBLE & KENT INDIA PVT LTD Petitioner Through:

Mr Rishabh Jetley, Advocate.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ORS Respondents Through:

Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr Farman Ali and Mr Brajesh Kumar, Advocates.

WITH + W.P.ra 5114/2018 and CM No. 19763/2018 M/S MAGUNM VENTURES LTD.

Petitioner Thi'ough:

Mr Priyadarshi Manish, Ms Anjali J.

Manish and Ms Nidhi Saini, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Respondents Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC for UOI.

AND + W.P.(C) 12124/2018 and CM Nos. 47078/2018 & 47079/2018 SANYA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Through:

Ms Malini Sud, Mr Vikas Mishra, Mr Shubhankar Sen Gupta and Mr Shashwat Tripathi, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ORS.

Respondents Through:

Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr Farman Ali and Mr Varun Pathak, Advocates for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

ORDER

% 14.11.2018

1.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents state that they have instructions that the respondents shall withdraw the recovery notices, impugned in these petitions, to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.: SLP(C) No. 28830/2017. He states that the question whether the SFIS Scheme would apply to Indian companies selling their services under allegedly foreign brands, is a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners state that apart from the aforesaid issue, there are other serious objections to recovery notices including that Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) did not have any jurisdiction to take any policy decision prior to 2012. They further state that the recovery notices, impugned in these petitions, are barred by limitation and the respondents do not have any recourse to Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. This Court does not consider it necessary to address these issues as all the contentions, including one as articulated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would be available to the petitioners as and when any steps are taken by the respondents for recovering any amount, which is subject matter of disputes in the present petitions.

3.

The withdrawal of recovery notices are without prejudice to rights and contentions of the respondents including the right to issue a fresh recovery notices, if any. It is made expressly clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether the respondents have any such right to issue the recovery notices.

4.

Since the recovery notices are withdrawn, the present petitions do not survive and are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same, if the occasion so arises. The pending application stands disposed of. 5.

OvdQV dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 14, 2018 RK /