{"id":136850,"date":"2008-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-30T05:05:55","modified_gmt":"2018-09-29T23:35:55","slug":"ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
IN THE: HIGH mum or ruuuumum,   4%\nDATED nus mm 13\"! nmror    O  V\nmm Hownnn: MR. Jta\u00e9lfrngm  ma\ufb01a:  '\n E 1'!'      \n\n~      \n\nA PAR'rNERsa1P_F1E:M HAmNc+(  % *\n\nOFFICE, .-9-:3' N\u00a3a.\u00bb5?;4A,iNDus'P\u00a7e:AL'sa\ufb01aua\nBANGAL.()RE_\u20ac\"5\u00ab6{)02'2,-..__  V _ ' j \n\n'REF Err' iTS'i.E\ufb01J_THGRiSEOD._RE'RE;SENTAT\"\nSURYANARAYAE.   \n\nT}\n PETITIONER\n\n(B\u00a7\u00bbs1~s--;'sHSm;iy!j%j<'1oolit;;;r;\"t!?\u00a7eva]idation of quota\n\n...._1......-- --...... .. .. 1... 1..'f_.. -1.' ._ .. 1:. ....-.__....... ._ __ ._ c--.....1\n.1 15V 1: yeti' [3 LI. his all 1\" 'll. 31  3  1 E. .l. W-\n\ndeposit    the  in operation\n\nan   cover the amount of EMD\n\nby dlettexl'  or post dated cheques. The\n forfeiture is that an exporter who\n\" io.otleee\"tl1\u00e9V11 90% of the export entitlement. its EMD\n\nV   in full. In case of utilisation upto 75% of\n liiet  items and upto 50% in case of slow moving\n  i. -..1-.,.itr.-d in \"re-port1.'.on to the shortfall of\n\nI'\n\nL;._:1_-___4___ -1-\n\n _ u';4u.autiu1. If an e-x--po'-\"T ie agg\ufb01e\"ed b\" any 'fv:'rr- U1\nforfeitme. it could mainta111' ' an appeal to the First Appellate\n\nCommittee and thereafter to a Second Appellate Committee.\n\nmJ\n\n\n\nraises almost identical contentions as; \"are: it by \n\nRespondents 1 and 2 in their :'u'3tat$\"..'IElf.\"l-11ll2'g.0.ii\"' sln l'<\/pre>\n
addition, it is contended tliat__.tl1eliis:x_\ufb01orter
\nbene\ufb01t of the garment   policy by
\nfurnishing a bank   to export
\ngarments i11 te1ms__oi”   cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted   Land ‘i’e.ii1oba.te;l It is stated that the<\/p>\n
place relevant material in support
\nof its  of force—>_m’ajeu1e.\n<\/p>\n
o Learned counsel on .l_1_. oetiti __er advances the<\/p>\n
*1<\/p>\n
iiernitelitions:\n<\/p>\n
eijaj “that the ‘Policy’ providing for forfeiture of the
\nearnest money deposit. in its entirety. for exports less than<\/p>\n
“Il=\ufb02I_
\nI<\/p>\n
“ii “\/6 and proportionate foifeiti\ufb01e for exports her” “:1 sro<\/p>\n
and 9% under the First Come First Serve IFCFS<\/p>\n
irrational and unreasonable. J Hi<\/p>\n
l \u00abfor Resp-.e;ndent No.3 mntends th”t \ufb01r’ ‘-hallo”? in the<\/p>\n
b) the apgellate authority fell in __  _not<\/p>\n
considering the documentary evidence    2
\npetitioner in support of the elrim-of foIeeVrlntnjienie,:”.vili\ufb02e’ j <\/p>\n
directing forfeiture of the EMD.\n<\/p>\n
1:} \ufb02mn
\nI<\/p>\n
‘can<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
obligation was not  to  on the part of the<\/p>\n
petitioner but was for Ieaeons’   o_ontro1.<\/p>\n
,1-n1 3  ~. .71 –\n<\/p>\n
‘) tone em _er., ciecisions in  3.5 :involving identical
\n1,sn-s. end  it-‘=” *””V*F***’ “”‘ “” “””* “”””<\/p>\n
. V _ 4’ V ‘vs-I J.tl.\\.”il\u00ab\\’.I, uic \u00a2’i’Iiu.n’J11I..i ‘S L! Vi\ufb02g
\n  of  cann_t. te..I.ee to “Lvxpt
\nthe i)_et:itioner’5’elei:n’ot’Tit:n:e\u00a51najeme, in the fact situation of
\nthis _ i it    <\/p>\n
LL’!
\n5<\/span><\/p>\n
 ” L6. Per”eontra,’1_ean1ed_ Seni_r eonnee. – .I.. C-.L. l’-3.2-.=.-.’.=;-..’.<\/p>\n
  v. .v  nnavailabie to the petitioner as the gaiments<\/p>\n
 _    short of the quota allotted to it within the periocl<\/p>\n
 AA s\ufb01nnleted. According to the learned Senior counsel, in<\/p>\n
 * .teiins of the policy. the petitioner was fully aware of the<\/p>\n
 consequences of proportionate forfeiture of Bank guarantee<\/p>\n
on failure to export garments upto 90% but not less than
\n75%, and forfeiture, in full, if less than 75%. Petitioner<\/p>\n
Jet<\/p>\n
L.\/ \\<\/p>\n
having umwwepwu I..|.n\\4 ……’… ……..s, ‘L. I}… aIg1..ed., c_,\u00ab_.v_;1r1..111.’.*..tt_’–.\u00a2_:’h.~:v=:.’;_._<\/p>\n
.7!<\/p>\n
to contend that the poiicy in  far as: if\u00a7’i”.:’!\u00a3?!f\u00e9E’o ‘liZ?..:f(?Ii”f””.’;_t”i.i”i””> <\/p>\n
is either irrational or unleasonabie. counsel <\/p>\n
further “contends that
\nvalidity of the policy,    case of
\nGOKALDAS  oi? INDIA. a
\nlearned Single Judgeofv  of–~De1hi. Iejectecl the<\/p>\n
plea in the  1ep\u00a75i~m’d:i5:e* (7) STE’ 347 (DEC).<\/p>\n
 Sewer   :_=ig_tii_’_;1; oohtends that the
\n‘pehtrio-\ufb01r iv-v”-:5 \ufb01*~t:”}”‘d r-levant mater-La} conet-….:h.L..”g<\/p>\n
substantial iegaie’.e:vide11oe.– of a ciaim of i’o1’oe–111aje”ur’. th’<\/p>\n
authorities “:igh\ufb023?~.,Ao\u00a3ieide1ed and rejected the said pica.<\/p>\n
 at is Aoontended that the petitioner having exported<\/p>\n
‘  t’  upto 65.66% of the export. entitlement, the<\/p>\n
t’ . H  “were justi\ufb01ed in directing \ufb01zcrfeiture of the<\/p>\n
 fmm out of the bank guarantee, in full.<\/p>\n
7. Sri. Devadass, learned Senior counsel for
\nRespondents 1 and 2 contends that the petitioner having
\n an allotment of a quota to export garments under<\/p>\n
+1.. ‘ ‘ ‘
\nwe whey. w3…:out H-=-eh”-m”\n<\/p>\n
foifeiture, cannot he 1 mm m ‘”*p=’obate.  V.ie-probate<\/p>\n
by calling in question the policy  ehortpexfpoft <\/p>\n
of garments. Aoooniing to the  iqgaota <\/p>\n
for export of garments    ‘Wit
\npresumed that the exporter  _tlist:2haifv\u00a7gev’its.i:(:;bligation to
\nexport: garments in   in older to
\neneuzle such  to the extent of<\/p>\n
.orfI;.i”e of ‘l;’1oi’n:o’tit”of..t.i’:1e bank guarantee as<\/p>\n
stated t.heren1.caI;:’:ot”be c1L:=..1’ae1.n…I.1. a- ..1t!1er L’ra__1_L_ -1
\nunreasunautc heaved %r;_i’*r eo'””‘e1 11’-ekns t” m” that<\/p>\n
gann ent  ‘-up  in its nature” since quotas<\/p>\n
 each  under the policy is to maximise<\/p>\n
 e1tchan’ge–.——\u00ab’i’he Government. according to the learned<\/p>\n
‘   ifcx\ufb01xnsei. is well within its right to provide for<\/p>\n
  the Bank guarantee, so as to ensure full and<\/p>\n
 utilisation of the quota and that is piecieely what<\/p>\n
8. Having heanrl the learned counsel for the parties,
\nperused the pleadings. there can be no more dispute that in<\/p>\n
terms of the “Policy” , the petitioner applied for and <\/p>\n
MK<\/p>\n
an _-.-….-…i-at  p-nun:-ul-up-.1. ‘I’I!’il”\u00a3I’I” FCl_iJ. %  ‘  <\/p>\n
__.1 :_ ’24.-\n<\/p>\n
and having failed to do so within the  <\/p>\n
entirety, the AEPC issued notice: calliiig;  the i’<\/p>\n
to show cause as to why aeiioh shdnlti’ not ti!-lteh  forfeit.<\/p>\n
\nthe monies from out   lgwhich was
\nresponded to by     not being
\nsatis\ufb01ed with the  ‘A.”l’t\u00a71v!’i.\ufb01.’i.-it\ufb02ltl Rs. 1,130,697] –<\/p>\n
from out ei\u00b0’tij;e-”  guarantee, by order<\/p>\n
by ertler clatecl’w’iLlaii7.1{(‘}!3fi'”?)’i’V..” A n11exu1e–‘C””‘. whue”, the nutn” ” er<\/p>\n
appeal the  Committee was dismissed by<\/p>\n
v.\u00a7ideiiV:da_ted size-‘is~\u00ab2oo4 Annexure-“D”.<\/p>\n
  .. 1 J.d…..’l f… jun  n ‘U’I’I\\l’I ‘I-11:: nilnu ‘n.-n_<\/p>\n
fox’ cleeisieli making me,<\/p>\n
 a} whether the challenge to the policy in so far as it
\nrelates to forfeiture, for 11011-ful\ufb01llment of the export
\nobligation within the time stipulated is sustainable?<\/p>\n
b) Whether the AEPC and the Appellate Committees
\nwere justi\ufb01ed in Iejeetm T e p\u00e9\ufb01di rs emuu uf<\/p>\n
min-ce=maje’.im_. while dismissing the . .pP!’;….’.~..’? l J<\/p>\n
pm:\n<\/p>\n
[*3<\/p>\n
10. Indisputably, the export enti\ufb02en;eiit~–.quota <\/p>\n
was er. the p”‘o!.’i’.’i0l1e1″3 applimgtionpt-;=.v it
\ngarments,  a tirne s:’;”ip’u'”tt:d, ‘-and fu\ufb01fnished  “bau'”‘*k<\/p>\n
guarantee, interalia,  \ufb02iat  failure
\nful\ufb01ll the export obligation;’ii1″its   be subject
\nto forfeiture clause otiiti:-gel __ consciously
\nagreed to  jtgh\u00a2pe;;.1\u00bb;\u00a2itu;t that if it exported
\nga1n1ent::\\’4\u00a7;”‘\u00a2yoi;\u00a2};’~_V75<}4{,:.\u00a7ijtQ_  of the export entitlement, it
\nwotiid"'1:eiAi.A:Ii;v;iii}Jie*\u00a331'  forfeiture and if less then<\/p>\n
75955:,    from out of the amount in<\/p>\n
the  gu*"a31t.ee.\u00bb__..'The censent cf …1e 1*-.e\ufb01.Lcner m be<\/p>\n
v\u00bb\u00bbs%ubjeeted to"t11e___terms oi' the  reiatiii\ufb01 to fun f"'c'*e '-1<\/p>\n
 \u00bbt1ie._eve11t"'ot_'_ failuie to ful\ufb01ll the export entitfiement, in the<\/p>\n
 =  cannot be permitted to appmbate and<\/p>\n
feprobate nor assume inconsistent positions. So also having<\/p>\n
it " r  . unsuccessful in the appeals before the First and<\/p>\n
it  Second Appellate Committees, are disentitled from<\/p>\n
questioning t11e validity of the forfeiture clause in the 'Policy'.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
-..-\n<\/p>\n
1 1. Th” C””3′{‘f;?\ufb01t’u”’11 that the teams of \u00a7’_”1’o1..i._i…:re a.,,
\nirrationai and unreasonabie hi the ci1et1msi:3:1i’e.’s’~is <"'"_'4i'i\u20ac1b <\/p>\n
pale of consideration. I say so   i'<\/p>\n
allotting quotas is with the
\nexchange. which is of vital  for   and as
\na consequence,    allocated
\nis imperative slid it is  object of maximising<\/p>\n
the uti1isatioii":;jo:.i"t11e._quo'&i, 'the wiiulioyfplovides a clause for<\/p>\n
poiiuy {reed on pi"'6"'i""" tim"1g ail 1%-"Be" of<\/p>\n
hnpieinentsiionegilo\u00e9a to achieve a particular objective,<\/p>\n
nioie a1i::"1.:.1w:i-"p:1'v.\u00a7V1'Viaeli3ir–._Vi1i1'~~'ii11e matters of bilateral trade. in my<\/p>\n
v.':o'ipi1;ion,.e' bei1ig"p–eou1iai* in its nature, the Government was<\/p>\n
i   rights to provide for ibrfeituie and tlieieible,<\/p>\n
.' .  as either irmtional or unconstitutional. It<\/p>\n
Ii111st.:be borne in mind that there must be free play with the<\/p>\n
A i "Cgovemineiit in matters of economic policies which are not<\/p>\n
well settled law that oourts, in exercise of their ju1'isc'Iioi:ion,<\/p>\n
W
\nU\\<\/p>\n
pd
\nJ:\n<\/p>\n
 not transgress into the \ufb01eld of  de:iiei6i:;,i’L”aea <\/p>\n
are ill equipped to adjudidate 0;; a V’   <\/p>\n
court, no–doubtl1as a duty to   <\/p>\n
El decision, no law is   peopieia:\n<\/p>\n
rights are not transgiesseii  toil} the extent<\/p>\n
permissible under   ”\n<\/p>\n
12. I13; ‘aliliost  a learned Single
\nJudge car’   of GOKALDAS IMAGES
\nLIMi”I’ED lli;”s\u00a7ION\u00ab.i\/()F’ znmalim W.P.No.8539_I2003 and<\/p>\n
ceni3ec”u.u=”‘ “i’\ufb01i”” *’*’*.i’i'””i’e.. ‘by 9″‘-=”” d9.*…..-“‘1 12-03-29″.)-3.<\/p>\n
‘ _ ALI?  awn’-ra<\/p>\n
re 11ecl\u00b0\ufb011e-oontei1iiicJz1ihai: the  ” “”‘*’Tir’1ii1″‘ 1U ‘- LU 1e”:,”””
\n. V _ V P0 y P 3<\/p>\n
_ ii11posi\ufb016n.Qf_penalty for non-ful\ufb01llment of the obligation<\/p>\n
 *unc!.er.ti:.e”expo1t quota could be challenged by an exporter<\/p>\n
H ‘–   bene\ufb01t of a policy, following the decision of<\/p>\n
“fine Aj\ufb01xiiicoun in the case of PPR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
ii ” +g.11di”0\ufb021ers. Vs. Union of India and Others Ieported in AIR<\/p>\n
V   SC. 3461. in the matter of interference by writ courts<\/p>\n
with pelicy matters, by obsexving thus: _  Till<\/p>\n
1…\n<\/p>\n
UT<\/p>\n
“4; An applicant has no eem<\/p>\n
-n ‘saws-no<\/p>\n
‘aht”‘<\/p>\n
have export or import licences in terme. of <\/p>\n
.1… II …..:.n.\n<\/p>\n
Lip;\n<\/p>\n
.. .’… r……… A 1…. .-….. . I……’_~\u00ab’.’:~-._..”:.
\nyuuwca 1.l.l. Luna: ed’. int: tiatic: Uf 1u:-.i-  ‘<\/p>\n
application. For obvious reaons,  of ‘  it<\/p>\n
licences depends upon theyyypolicy
\nthe date of the grant of (the ‘licence or =<\/p>\n
The authority concerned may he  -.a’ better :1; at
\nposition to have the overall ’13ictuJe’ol”~diver3_e’–., ‘<\/p>\n
factors to grant  on ie\ufb011sc.~”‘to grant
\n}err.niseion to i.m.mrt__ ex\u00bb e..vp:.-i_’t. ‘  “‘i”‘l1e
\ndecision, therefote, would be taken from diverse
\nace-new-:: I3\ufb01f3,’fDCl.’-7ti’\\F\ufb013″Vu’1lii!:’51’lV”?r1\u20ac executive is in
\na better infonn\u00e9cl position-\u00abiznless, as we have
\nstated earlier, tl1Ca’iBl-119331  fine or is an
\nabuse of the powezyiii__Wl1iCl1.Veven.t=’it is for the
\napplicant to pleadanzl piove ioaztlie satisfaction
\nof the  that the refnsalwos vitiated by the
\nabove’       .\n<\/p>\n
 1111  ‘. wouim ttt\u00a7e:e:e1ie, be clear that grant<\/p>\n
of licence dcpentia___upon the policy prevailing as<\/p>\n
 on the “-:late eofitlie ‘grant of the licence; The<\/p>\n
‘C-oiry1’t,i  tiaerefix1je”,*  would not bind the
\nG-<\u00a3v'emment7witn policy veliieh was exiati\ufb01" on<\/p>\n
LA tl1?'VCll3lEB of application as  Iineivious policy. A
\n ueeielon Womn  mno. tne uovernment<\/p>\n
for all \ufb01ineeto come. When the Government axe<\/p>\n
'saiieiied that change in the policy was necessary<\/p>\n
 at  the goublic interest, it would be entitled. to
\n' 'revise "the policy and lay down new policy. The<\/p>\n
.C.onit, therefore, would piefer to allow lice play<\/p>\n
 to the Government to evolve \ufb01scal policy in the<\/p>\n
iv-n'*"'" m act awn tlie same.\n<\/p>\n
$1′!-Avunn\ufb01 I-I-1′):\n<\/p>\n
uuu .I.l.I.|.hJ.u:u.. auu<\/p>\n
V  Equally, the Government ie left free to determine<\/p>\n
priorities in the matters of allocations or
\nallotments or utilisation of its \ufb01nances in the
\npublic interest. It is equally entitled, therefore,
\nto issue or withdraw or modify the export or
\nimport policy in accordance with the scheme<\/p>\n
evolved; i i F” l 0<\/p>\n
16<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13. In y’t ‘”0″‘eTr deeisian cf a , sf <\/p>\n
the High Court of Delhi in  T
\n2007(7) STR 347(()EC)  thag’.~”E’;jiie1if~;
\nbeing peculiar in its nauiie’  T   beiiig
\nprovided for each   well within
\nits right to Vtbimuletes  M  and maximum<\/p>\n
utilisation  cguota  be interfen-.d with.<\/p>\n
i ‘  14:  Tiie”coii.tei1\ufb01on that on account of late receipt of<\/p>\n
  .___o1t supply of fabrics, the cause for shortfall in<\/p>\n
CI
\n5 _._..\n<\/p>\n
 leadin in gm-m..jeII . eoiidition was
\n and rejecieci by *”e a1it}'”i”-iti–s. Ar. examinaeen<\/p>\n
 _  of ‘tee orders impugied discloses that in the absence of
\n*  iielevant material and satisfactory proof of existence of fierce-
\nmajeune oonditioii. the authorities rejected the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. No exception can be taken to the said \ufb01nding.<\/p>\n
\n\\ l\\\n\nUK\n \n\n\n\n...... . '. 1... .. .,    '\n<\/pre>\n
t ‘ ” tlxut the ‘o ‘\ufb01”‘?’1-:33 exts;n.dez,1__ I33:<\/p>\n
1:’ TL- 1….\n<\/p>\n
10- Ill 3<\/p>\n
the authorities in identical cilenmstanoes =   <\/p>\n
cases, were not applied in the pmsent ica\u00e9e; tie”-also-ewitlzout ‘<\/p>\n
any merit. I say so bee\ufb01ng’-6.  of z
\ndependant upon facts of   on tipcumelxtary
\nevidence to CBtab\ufb01S}#”.’f11B \ufb01nch eontlitions. The
\npetitioner has.’ not    that in identical<\/p>\n
   the claim of force-\n<\/p>\n
…..;…….3: gf ‘=\u00bbn._;’ vdi’\u00a2nn*:n.i-fen}. _%’~g’1r|’.|r-‘}*7:t3|”i’ bnng\ufb01<\/p>\n
44’a.’.rA\\I.l E1-‘JuIv’I.V +3-I I-54’: sauna. ‘an \\o nun ~.-=-u.n—.–.-. ..<\/p>\n
circn-mstancesei1d_ptnn\u00a7itcnu14=  on reooni in a part1″-eu1a1′ * case, n<\/p>\n
goes    any decision rendered in that case,<\/p>\n
 not, ni\ufb02esa-\u00abfacts and circumstances are shown to be<\/p>\n
V  V’ nave application.\n<\/p>\n
.  writ petition is without merit and is accordingly,<\/p>\n
‘ e Voer\u00e9egecvited.\n<\/p>\n
I.’
\nO9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy IN THE: HIGH mum or ruuuumum, 4% DATED nus mm 13″! nmror O V mm Hownnn: MR. Jta\u00e9lfrngm ma\ufb01a: ‘ E 1′!’ ~ A PAR’rNERsa1P_F1E:M HAmNc+( % * OFFICE, .-9-:3′ N\u00a3a.\u00bb5?;4A,iNDus’P\u00a7e:AL’sa\ufb01aua BANGAL.()RE_\u20ac”5\u00ab6{)02’2,-..__ V _ ‘ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2064,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008"},"wordCount":2064,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008","name":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T23:35:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-amritsar-swadeshi-wollen-vs-union-of-india-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Amritsar Swadeshi Wollen … vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}