HOLOFLEX LTD & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21 January 2026 Pronounced on: 23 March 2026 + LPA 314/2019 HOLOFLEX LTD & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr. Rupal Gupta, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT % 23.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. REVIEW PET. 160/2021 A. The lis 1. The Union of India1 seeks, by means of this petition, review of judgment dated 28 February 2020, whereby we had allowed LPA 314/2019 and set aside the judgment dated 22 February 2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WP (C) 1816/2019. 1 "UOI" hereinafter LPA 314/2019 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 22 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.03.2026 12:49:33 2. We may note two features at the outset. 3. Firstly, as recorded in para 23 of the judgment under review, learned Counsel for the UOI had, at that stage, conceded to the position in law as advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant Holoflex Ltd2. Today, it is being sought to be urged that an erroneous concession in law does not bind, and review of the decision can legitimately be sought. Keeping in mind the fact that the issue involves an interpretation of certain provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy3 and the Handbook of Procedures4 2004-2009, we agreed to entertain the review petition and reconsider the issue. 4. A second feature which requires to be noted is that the total revenue implication in this case is all of ₹ 2 lakhs. Again, as review was sought on a point of law, we have not been allowed ourselves to be swayed by the revenue involved. 5. We now proceed to advert to the judgment, of which review is so