High Court of DelhiLPA/349/2016

Kothari Product Ltd v. Director General Of Foreign Trade And ANR

2017-10-25Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva2 pages

$~43-46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 345/2016 & CM APPL. NOS. 20731/2016, 43220/2016 & 37058/2017 PAN PARAG INDIA LTD.

..... Appellants versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. ..... Respondents LPA 349/2016 & CM APPL. NOS. 20741/2016, 43221/2016 & 36880/2017 KOTHARI PRODUCT LTD.

..... Appellants versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. ..... Respondents LPA 350/2016 & CM APPL. NOS. 20781/2016, 43222/2016 & 37052/2017 KOTHARI PRODUCT LTD.

..... Appellants versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. ..... Respondents LPA 351/2016 & CM APPL. NOS. 20784/2016, 43219/2016 & 37053/2017 PAN PARAG INDIA LTD.

..... Appellants versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Mr. Dhruv Surana, Mr. Nipun Goel & Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocates for appellants Mr. Saeed Qadri, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Advocates for Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr.

Standing Counsel for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 25.10.2017 The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had upheld the maintainability of notice proposing review LPA 345/2016 with connected matters

under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act, 1992. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urges that after the impugned notice - proposing review was made, the appeal preferred under Section 15(1) of the Act was decided in the appellant/writ petitioner's favour, thus, removing the basis of the original adjudicatory order.

It is urged that as a consequence, the original orders made under Sections 9 and 11, in effect, were merged with the appellate order. This Court is of the opinion that the argument with respect to maintainability of the review in the light of subsequent developments can be urged before the concerned authority, i.e. the Director General. In the light of this clarification, learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the appeal.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

OCTOBER 25, 2017 rd LPA 345/2016 with connected matters