D. NAVINACHANDRA & CO., BOMBAY & ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

D. NAVINACHANDRA & CO., BOMBAY & ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Export House Certificates and Additional Licences issued under Import Policy, 1978-79 entitle import of items not specifically banned under prevalent Import Policy at the time of import, in accordance with the canalisation scheme; subsequent decisions of the Court have not altered this principle, and no promissory estoppel applies against the Government in this case.

Parties
Petitioner: D. Navinchandra & Co., Bombay; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 April 1985
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Import Policy, Canalisation Policy, Export House Certificates, Restitution, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
Administrative Law Import/export Law Constitutional Law Import Policy Canalisation Policy Export House Certificates Restitution Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. Navinchandra & Co., Bombay

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent decisions of the Court affected the rights of diamond exporters to import items under the Import Policy subsequent to the order dated April 18, 1985.
  2. 2 Whether canalised items could be imported directly by the exporters pursuant to Export House Certificates and Additional Licences issued under Import Policy, 1978-79.
  3. 3 Whether a case for promissory estoppel against the Government was made out.

Ratio Decidendi

Export House Certificates and Additional Licences issued under Import Policy, 1978-79 entitle import of items not specifically banned under prevalent Import Policy at the time of import, in accordance with the canalisation scheme; subsequent decisions of the Court have not altered this principle, and no promissory estoppel applies against the Government in this case.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioners must pay costs of the application.
  • Interim orders, if any, are vacated forthwith.