SHREE SAI KRIPA MARKETING v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Delhi judgment dated 2020-10-22. SHREE SAI KRIPA MARKETING v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 8161/2020 & CM APPL. 26448/2020 SHREE SAI KRIPA MARKETING ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Ms. Mansie Jain and Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Advocates for respondent no. 6. nd % Date of Decision: 22 October, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the final th order dated 11 May, 2020 passed by National Anti-profiteering Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NAPA’) wherein it has been held that the th petitioner profiteered Rs. 38,64,891/- during the period 15 November, 2017 st to 31 March, 2019. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the calculation done by the Director General of Anti-profiteering (DGAP) is factually incorrect as he has calculated the profiteered amount twice. He emphasises that each invoice has been taken twice while calculating the profiteered amount as is evident from the Annexure 34. He also states that the profiteered amount has been computed both in the hands of the principal company as well as in the hands of the petitioner. 4. Issue notice. 5. Mr. Farman Ali, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Ms. Mansie Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 6. 6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, on instructions, admits that there are some factual mistakes in the impugned order and he has no objection if the impugned th order dated 11 May, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to NAPA for fresh adjudication. 7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same. 8. Consequently, with consent of the parties, the impugned order dated th 11 May, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to NAPA for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. List the matter before NAPA on th 18 November, 2020. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 9. Accordingly, present writ petition along with pending application stand disposed of. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 22, 2020 KA
Source: High Court of Delhi. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.