Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) ors. Vs. Taj Trading Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 596 of 1980
Judge
Reported in(1982)2SCC141
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi) ors.
RespondentTaj Trading Company
Excerpt:
.....of grant of licence -- the union of india and the chief controller of imports & exports, udyog bhavan, new delhi — to consider the application dated december 25, 1978 filed by the respondent in respect of the contract dated november 28, 1978, for 500 mt r.b.d. palmolein since, the application filed by the respondent for an import licence in respect of the aforesaid contract was rejected by the union of india on the ground only that the respondent had failed to show that its manager had authority to sign the contract on its behalf. - earlier the application was rejected on the ground that the respondent had failed to show that its manager had authority to sign the contract on its behalf and hence while considering the application the question has to be limited to the above..........e.s. venkataramiah and; d.a. desai, jj.1. we direct appellants 1 and 2 — the union of india and the chief controller of imports & exports, udyog bhavan, new delhi — to consider the application dated december 25, 1978 filed by the respondent in respect of the contract dated november 28, 1978, for 500 mt r.b.d. palmolein since, the application filed by the respondent for an import licence in respect of the aforesaid contract was rejected by the union of india on the ground only that the respondent had failed to show that its manager had authority to sign the contract on its behalf. the reconsideration by appellants 1 and 2 of the question whether an import licence should be granted to the respondent will be limited only to the aforesaid question. the application filed.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.,; E.S. Venkataramiah and; D.A. Desai, JJ.

1. We direct Appellants 1 and 2 — the Union of India and the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi — to consider the application dated December 25, 1978 filed by the respondent in respect of the contract dated November 28, 1978, for 500 MT R.B.D. Palmolein since, the application filed by the respondent for an import licence in respect of the aforesaid contract was rejected by the Union of India on the ground only that the respondent had failed to show that its manager had authority to sign the contract on its behalf. The reconsideration by Appellants 1 and 2 of the question whether an import licence should be granted to the respondent will be limited only to the aforesaid question. The application filed by the respondent shall be disposed of by Appellants 1 and 2 within four weeks from today.

2. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of this Order.

3. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //