Chennai, March 30 The Madras High Court has ruled that “exim scrips” sold by a Chennai-based exporter under a Government scheme launched in July 1991 on foreign exchange earned are genuine.
The Court directed State Bank of India, Chennai, to honour the promise held out by a circular of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai.
In his recent order, Mr Justice K. Chandru – while allowing a writ petition by H. Champalal Jain, challenging the order dated June 23, 2006, of DDGFT refusing to pay the petitioner’s claim for payment of premium on the scrips – asked the bank to pay within eight weeks Rs 8,83,400 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent.
The petitioner said he bought 20 scrips under the scheme and presented them to SBI for encashment. The DDGFT instructed the bank not to pay the amount as, according to him, some scrips were found to be bogus. It was stated that the vendor of the scrips was prosecuted by the CBI.
The petitioner moved the High Court with the prayer to direct the bank to pay the sum in respect of the “genuine” scrips bought by him. The Court ruled that the order would govern only those claims under genuine scrips. The Government went on appeal, and a Division Bench of this Court held, inter alia, that when petitioners were entitled to payments against scrips, which were accepted to be genuine and valid, payments could not be directed to be withheld.
In the present petition, the Judge noted that it could be seen the exim scrips bought by the petitioner were also referred to by the Division Bench. Subsequent to the order of the Bench dated February 21, 1994, summons were issued to the petitioner and investigation was also completed. The petitioner sent letters to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, who by the order dated December 15, 1998, rejected the request.
The petitioner once again went to the Court challenging the said order, and the same was set aside by the Court. Pursuant to the said order, DDGFT passed the impugned order dated February 23, 2006, rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
The petitioner contended that the respondents were bound to make the payment on the principle of equitable estoppel. The Judge ruled that the rights of petitioner had been secured by earlier orders of this Court to the effect that the scrips were genuine. It gave an automatic right to the petitioner to claim the premium on the scrips. The writ petition would stand allowed.
Source : Business Line