C ROY CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1995-2-6
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
February 20,1995
C.ROY CO.
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PEERLESS GUIDE LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [RERERRED TO 17 1993 (1) BLJR 409 : AIR 1993 PAT 112 21,32,37]HOUSE OF LORDS IN R. V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT,EX PARTE RICHMOND UPON THAMES LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [RERERRED TO , 57]
M/S.NORTHERN INDIA SEEDS CORPORATION V. THE STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO 35]
INDIAN BANK V. METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD. [RERERRED TO 50 1994 (2) CLJ 174 36]
BURMAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [RERERRED TO]
SUGANMAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [RERERRED TO 33]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [RERERRED TO 35]
BISRA STONE LIME COMPANY LIMITED ORISSA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD:ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [RERERRED TO : 1976 (2) SCR 507 35]
DHANYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS SHRINIVASA SATNARAYANA BUNG DHANYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS NITHIN KUMAR CO NITHIN KUMAR CO SEETHARAMANJANEYA RICE MILLS SEETHARAMANJANEYA RICE MILLS SHRI RAMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES:UNION OF INDIA:COMMISSIONER 0F CIVIL SUPPLIES:UNION OF INDIA:STATE 01 ANDHRA PRADESH:STATE 0F ANDHRA PRADESH:STATE OF ANDHRA [RERERRED TO : 1976 (3) SCR 387 34]
RADHAKRISHNA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO : 1977 (3) SCR 249 35]
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. BANK OF INDIA [RERERRED TO : (1981) 3 SCR 300 22,53]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. AJUDHIA NATH [RERERRED TO 31 AIR 1980 DEL 174 14,55]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ESCORTS LIMITED [RERERRED TO : 1985 SUPP 3 SCR 909 20,30]
U P COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED VS. STNGH CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [RERERRED TO 22,52]
STERLING COMPUTERS LIMITED UNITED DATABASE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED UNITED INDIA PERIODICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M AND N PUBLICATIONS LIMITED:MAN PUBLICATIONS LIMITED:M AND N PUBLICATIONS LIMITED [RERERRED TO : 1993 (2) PLJR 12 (SC) 37 JT 1993 (3) SC 15 41]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. JAGANNATH DUTTA:L C BHAKAT [RERERRED TO : 1993 AIR SCW 1425 30,37]
SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN VS. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME [RERERRED TO : 1994 (1) SCC 502 22,49]
ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER VS. ISSAC PETER [RERERRED TO 39]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MEGHJI PETHRAJ SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST [RERERRED TO 38]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED:DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED:MAHA MAYA GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED [RERERRED TO 43]
MADRAS CITY WINE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION A J JOY RAMANATHAPURAM MADURAI DISTT LIQUOR DEALERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [RERERRED TO 42]
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. JAINSONS CLOTHING CORPORATION [RERERRED TO 54]
TEXMACO LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [RERERRED TO 51]
PANCHAM SINGH VS. STATE [RERERRED TO 35 1990 (2) CAMP LAW J 265 14,55]
BASF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO 35]
USHA BRECCOLTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO 37 JT 1992 (6) SC 259 40]
BINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO 37]
MAHANTH MOTILAL GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RERERRED TO 77 1994 (2) BLJ 1 77]
INDUSTRIAL FUEL COMPANY PRIVATE VS. HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION [RERERRED TO 37,40,76]
Cited Judgements :-
TATA CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECTS LTD VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1995-11-4] [REFERRED TO]D WREN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
Cycle Corporation of India LTD VS. Cycle Corporation of India Ltd [LAWS(CAL)-1996-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
P P RAJA REDDY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1996-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
AIMS INDIA P LTD VS. INDIAN BANK [LAWS(CAL)-1997-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
P K MAITRA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALCUTTA PORT TRUST [LAWS(CAL)-1998-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
SALKIA BUSINESSMENS ASSOCIATION VS. HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2000-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ CHOWDHURY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2000-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CHANDRA MONDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1997-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
NILRATAN GHOSH VS. INDO [LAWS(CAL)-1998-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner in this application, inter alia, has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith revoke and/or rescind and/or cancel the letters dated 7/09/1992 and 18/09/1992 which are contained in Annexures R, R/1, S, S/1 to the writ application as also desisting from invoking bank guarantee No. AH7/ BG/3/87, dated 7/11/1987 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs 57 thousand 1 hundred 60 and bank guarantee No. 5/88, dated 5/10/1988 for a sum of Rs. 31 lacs 71 thousand 4 hundred 80 both issued by the Bank of Maharashtra.
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(3.)The petitioner No. 1 owns a shipyard at Shibpur for carrying on business as Marine and Mechanical Engineers and structural fabricators. The respondent No. 5 intended to get a fishing trawler built by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the Central Government had evolved a scheme to promote shipping industries and grant loan to such persons intending to get a ship built wherefor even subsidy is paid. It is stated that a contract for building the aforesaid fishing trawler, the cost where of was one crore five lacs was entertained into between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 on or about 23-3-1987. The Government's subsidy was to be to the tune of 1/3rd of the said amount, namely, Rs. 31,40,128.00 and the buyers own contribution was only to the extent of Rs. 3,61,577.00. The respondent No. 2 Shipping Credit Investment Co. Ltd. granted a loan to the respondent No. 5 for a sum of Rs. 68,69,000.00. On or about 26/03/1987, a tripartite agreement in writing was executed by and between the petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5. On the same day an agreement was entered into by the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 for grant of subsidy to the extent of Rs. 33,40,128.00.
;
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(3.)The petitioner No. 1 owns a shipyard at Shibpur for carrying on business as Marine and Mechanical Engineers and structural fabricators. The respondent No. 5 intended to get a fishing trawler built by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the Central Government had evolved a scheme to promote shipping industries and grant loan to such persons intending to get a ship built wherefor even subsidy is paid. It is stated that a contract for building the aforesaid fishing trawler, the cost where of was one crore five lacs was entertained into between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 on or about 23-3-1987. The Government's subsidy was to be to the tune of 1/3rd of the said amount, namely, Rs. 31,40,128.00 and the buyers own contribution was only to the extent of Rs. 3,61,577.00. The respondent No. 2 Shipping Credit Investment Co. Ltd. granted a loan to the respondent No. 5 for a sum of Rs. 68,69,000.00. On or about 26/03/1987, a tripartite agreement in writing was executed by and between the petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5. On the same day an agreement was entered into by the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 for grant of subsidy to the extent of Rs. 33,40,128.00.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.