PUTZMEISTER INDIA P LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions present the ultimate semantic dispute; what is characterized as a "lawyers" paradise" requiring the court to "correctly" decide whether the expression "has" is to be construed as one confined in point of time, (as suggested by the petitioner, Putzmeizter AG (hereafter "pag")) or as comprehending a time-continuum, as urged by Putzmeizter India (Pvt) Ltd (hereafter "pipl" ). PPIL is the writ petitioner in WP 5633-34/2006; PAG has preferred the writ proceeding, WP 3443/2007. The legality of a communication, of the Government of India (hereafter "the Central Government") dated 2-4-2007 also hinges on the interpretation to be adopted.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that PAG entered into technology transfer and joint venture agreements with Indian partners, (represented in WP 3443/2007 by the fifth and sixth respondents), on 19th December, 1997. The object of the arrangement was to set up an Indian company which was to be the joint venture vehicle for producing heavy duty pumps; PAG gave the technology, which was to be used by the new company, PIPL. The fifth and sixth respondents (hereafter "the indian promoters") invested to the tune of 76% and PMG, to the extent of 24% of the shareholding. Further to the agreement, PIPL was incorporated on 23rd january, 1998.

(3.) ON 14-12-1998, the Central Government, Ministry of Industry, issued press Note No. 18 (hereafter "the first Press Note") regulating the manner in which foreign direct investment could be made into the country, automatically. The material part of the said Press Note is as follows: