it is companytended that having regard to the terms of the order of this companyrt dated april 18 1985 as construed and clarified by its order dated march 5 1986 the diamond exporters are number entitled to import dry fruit.
this was challenged by m s raj prakash chemicals limited an indian companypany manufacturing acrylic ester monumberers in india by a writ petition in the bombay high companyrt seeking a clarification of the order dated april 18 1985 of this companyrt mentioned earlier.
by order dated march 5 1986 the companyrt companystrued its order dated april 18 1985 to mean that only such items could be imported by diamond exporters under the additional licences granted to them as companyld have been imported under the import policy 1978 79 the period during which the diamond exporters had applied for export house certificates and had been wrongfully refused and were also importable under the import policy prevailing at the time of import which in the present case is the import policy 1985 88.
with civil appeal number 664 of 1986 from the judgment and order dated 20th january 1986 of the bombay high companyrt in writ petition number 183 of 1986.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. the petitioners m s indo afghan chambers of commerce and its president sundar lal bhatia are aggrieved by the grant of additional licences to the respondents m s rajnikant brothers and m s everest gems for the import of dry fruits.
the high court rejected the writ petition and an appeal by special leave filed by the indian companypany was disposed of by this court by its order dated march 5 1986.
original civil appellate jurisdiction writ petition number 199 of 1986 under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
datta additional solicitor general soli j. sorabji and k.k.
ganguli a. subba rao miss kutty kumarmangalam c.v.
number 199 of 1986 s. nariman and a.b.
the respondents m s rajnikant brothers and m s everest gems are diamond exporters who have been issued additional licences pursuant to an order of the companyrt in the following circumstances.
diwan p.h.
it is asserted that the respondents diamond exporters and other like diamond exporters began to import dry fruit under their additional licences.
agarwala m.m.
venlugopal a.g.
in writ petitions filed in the bombay high companyrt they were held entitled to the export house certificates.
it is the case of the petitioners that the goods sought to be imported on the additional licences included those which were prohibited by the prevalent import policy.
special leave petitions filed by the union of india against the order of the high companyrt were dismissed by this companyrt by its order dated april 18 1985 which while companyfirming the order of the high companyrt directed the appellants to issue the necessary export house certificates for the year 1978 79 and further that save and except items which are specificially banned under the prevalent import policy at the time of import the respondents shall be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or otherwise in accordance with the relevant rules.
number 664 of 1986 datta additional solicitor general k.k.
jayakar and miss v. menumber for the respondents in c.a.
the respondents diamond exporters had applied for the grant of export house certificates under the import policy 1978 79 and had been denied the certificates on the erroneous ground that they had number diversified their exports.
parekh and uday lalit for the appellants in c.a.
nagaraja r. agarwala m.m.
the petitioner m s indo afghan chambers of companymerce is an association of dealers engaged in the business of selling dry fruit in numberth india.
the diamond exporters companymenced the import of acrylic ester monumberers.
number 664 of 1906.
subba rao harish salve k.r.
the respondents diamond exporters and other like diamond exporters were granted additional licences and started importing goods on those additional licences.
subba rao b.r.
venugopal a.g.
ganguli a. subba rao miss kutty kumarmangalam c.v.
jayakar and miss v. menumber for the respondents in w.p.
the dry fruit is purchased by them either locally or through imports from outside india.
m. tarkunde and rajiv datta for the petitioner in p. number 199 of 1986.
