Madras High Court
J.Jugraj vs Appellate Tribunal For Foreign ... on 14 October, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAV ON:18.09.2014 DATED: 14/10/2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.Nos.35268 to 35270 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 J.Jugraj ... Petitioner in all WPs Vs. 1.Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Government of India, 4th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath (Indian Oil Bhavan), Janpath, New Delhi 110 001. 2.Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi. 3.The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Sastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents in all WPs Common Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent dated 08.10.2007, 20.03.2007 and 20.07.2004 respectively in Appeal No.205 of 2004 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesh (in all WPs) For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani (for R2 and R3) (in all WPs) ***** COMMON ORDER
The short facts of the case are as follows: (WP.No.35268/2007) The petitioner submits that based on information on 16.03.2002, the Enforcement Officer, attached to Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, searched business premises of the petitioner situated at 146, Vardaan Complex, 2nd Floor, Mint Street, Chennai-79, in terms of provisions of Section of FEMA, 1999, read with Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search action resulted in seizure of documents and India currency of Rupees one lakh at 7.00 p.m. On the same day a statement of the appellant was recorded in terms of Section 37(3) FEMA, 1999. The petitioner retracted the statement by submitting a letter dated 18.03.2002 and his son Mr.Lalit Kumar, who wrote the statement of his father / petitioner, also submitted a letter of retraction dated 18.03.2002. It is further submitted that from the documents seized i.e. some loose sheets from the premises which reveals that total payment received was Rs.1,83,20,700/- by the petitioner from persons in India and made payment to various parties in India of Rs.2,29,75,000/- by order on behalf of one Mr.Manohar of Dubai. After investigation, the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Chennai filed a complaint against the appellant on contravention of Section 3 (c) of FEMA 1999 and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- seized from the premises of the appellant was found to be involved in the said violations and as such, liable for confiscation in terms of Section 13(2) of the FEMA 1999, before the Special Director / 2nd respondent herein dated 27.08.2002. For the said contravention on consideration of which the show cause notice of one page was issued by the Special Director dated 09.09.2002.
2.The petitioner additionally submitted that he had submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The appellant's counsel cross examined the witness with Mr.Mangilal Choudhary and he said that he neither paid any money to the appellant nor he know any such person and he admitted that he had signed the statement on the compulsion of the Department. As such, he turned hostile. The petitioner's son Lalit Kumar claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as the said amount belonged to him. The Special Director, after hearing the petitioner's counsel was pleased to pass an order that the petitioner is guilty and imposed a penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- on the appellant and seized amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby ordered to be confiscated in terms of Section 13(2) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 by order dated 30.12.2003. The appellant submits that aggrieved by the said order he preferred an appeal with a prayer to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent / Special Director of Enforcement, dated 30.12.2003 before the 1st respondent under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the appeal papers were sent by speed post along with a covering letter on 19.02.2014. The petitioner submits that they had not received any communication or acknowledgment from the 1st respondent / Ministry of Law and Justice and Company Affairs after forwarding the appeal. The petitioner additionally added that there was no notice of hearing that was communicated to him under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 11 FEMA (Adjudication proceedings and Appeals) Rules 2000. Therefore, his counsel had sent a letter and telegram dated 11.05.2004 to the Registrar requesting about the position, status and case number of the Appeal since an Advocate from Delhi rang up to his son on 10.05.2004 and said that the case is posted for hearing on 13.05.2004.
3.The petitioner additionally submits that he and his counsel are from Chennai and the petitioner verified with his counsel about the hearing date and informed about the information. His counsel had said that there was no communication from the Tribunal about the hearing date and hence he had to send the above said representation and telegram on 11.05.2004. Subsequent to that an order from the Tribunal dated 19.05.2004 was received by his counsel stating that hearing of the case reported to 20.07.2004 from 18.06.2004, along with the communication a proceeding of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2004 was enclosed stating that the case was taken up by a Single Bench (no other Members attend the Tribunal work). Appellant's counsel Mr.Mathew prays for time. For hearing the I.A. and further orders and the case posted on 18.06.2004. The above communication was posted on 24.06.2004 and the same was received on 25.06.2004. The counsel informed him about an advocate who appeared as if he was appointed by him before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent herein. He immediately denied the meeting of any Advocate by name Mr.Mathew or instruct him to appear. He submits that his counsel had a family function at his residence on 20.07.2004 and therefore he sent a letter on 10.07.2004 to the Registrar of the Tribunal, seeking adjustment of the case from 20.07.2004 to some other date and communicate the same and posted the same by speed post on 12.07.2004. He understands that the said letter was not placed before the Tribunal on 20.07.2004 at the time of hearing. On perusal of the records from the Court by his counsel, he understands that on 20.07.2004 also, the said Mr.Mathew J.Nedumpara appeared before the Tribunal and sought adjournment as the appellant did not brief him and the 1st respondent Tribunal had said that the Advocate Mr.Mathew J.Nedumpara did not file Vakalath and he was also present on 13.05.2004 and none have appeared to argue the application for dispensation of the pre-deposit and decide the application ex-parte and passed an order to that effect on 20.07.2004 stating that to direct the appellant to deposit 50% of the penalty amount as per pre-deposit within 90 days from the receipt of this order. The petitioner further submits that his counsel had sent a letter dated 10.07.2004 to the Registrar seeking adjournment of this case to some other date with a valid reason but the said letter was not placed before the 1st respondent by the Registrar on that day and thereby the 1st respondent has no knowledge about the letter seeking adjournment. The non placing of the letter by the Registry was not their fault.
4.The petitioner additionally added that after that there was no communication from the Tribunal regarding the hearing date or the order dated 20.07.2004, either to him or his counsel. Therefore, his counsel Mr.A.Ganesh, visited the 1st respondent and enquired about the case with the Registrar. One Mr.Dinesh had informed that he could not locate the file since there was some alteration in the office and the case bundles were all scattered. He took down the phone number of his counsel and said that as soon as he traced the file he will call his counsel. But, there was no call or communication from him. His counsel, when he visited Delhi, for some other work, visited the Tribunal and at that time another Registrar by name Mr.K.K.Sharma was there and he also could not locate the file or give the next hearing date. No one could give proper answer to his counsel. His counsel and himself were under the impression that the dispense with application itself was not taken for hearing. While this is so, he had received a notice dated 28.05.2007, from Enforcement Department i.e. 3rd respondent namely the Deputy Director, that demanding the payment of penalty amount and also stated that the appeal filed before the 1st respondent was dismissed on 20.03.2007. He was shocked to receive such a notice, immediately he contacted his counsel and stated that the appeal is dismissed on 20.03.2007 and for that his counsel said that there was no communication from the 1st respondent regarding the date of hearing. His counsel also was surprised to hear the dismissal order. Even the order dated 20.03.2007 was also not communicated either to himself or his counsel. He submits that he and his counsel are resident of Chennai and his counsel also had enquired the office of the Tribunal several times whenever he visited New Delhi. He has no communication about the order till today. He submits that he has appointed and given Vakalath to Mr.A.Ganesh, Advocate to represent his case. He submits that his counsel on 25.06.2004 had received the last communication from the 1st respondent. Thereafter, there was no communication from the 1st respondent. Because of non communication of the hearing date to himself and his counsel, they are unable to appear before the 1st respondent Tribunal on 20.03.2007 when the case was called and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal ex-parte. The non-appearance of himself and his counsel on 20.03.2007 was neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above.
5.He submits that against the dismissal order he preferred an application under Section 28(2)(h) of the FEMA 1999 before the first respondent to set aside the exparte dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner submits that the application was heard by the Bench on 24.07.2007 and since the Chairperson was on leave the case was adjourned to some other date. He submits that after that his counsel had verified all case records after getting permission from the Tribunal. On verifying the case file the order made on 13.05.2004, telegram, letter from his counsel dated 11.05.2004 and letter dated 10.07.2004 are not a form part of the record. It is totally missing. He submits that the Registry has not maintained the case file properly and they were not serious enough while receiving letters from the counsel. There is not aniota of evidence to show the letter has been placed before the Court. Further, the first respondent / Tribunal after passing the order dated 20.07.2004 had not communicated the same. Even for communication of the order to the appellant or his counsel there is not aniota of evidence to prove that the order has been sent by post or served. Further after the hearing was over on 20.07.2004 the case was put in cold storage for more than one and half years and taken only on 17.04.2006 and posted for hearing on 04.05.2006 and when the case was called none was present and the case was adjourned to 13.05.2006 and to issue notice to all concerned. In spite of the order no notice was issued to the appellant and on 09.11.2006 the Tribunal was pleased to order and issued notice under Rule 14(C) of the FEMA (Adj. and Appeal) Rules 2000. He submits that no notice was either affixed or served on him by the Enforcement Department prior to final hearing on 20.03.2007. There is absolutely no evidence to show that a notice has been sent to the petitioner / appellant through post or by affixture before the first respondent. No postal returns are placed before the First respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was refused to receive such notice. Under the circumstances there is absolutely a communication gap between the first respondent and the petitioner which ends against the petitioner. He submits that his counsel made an application for issuance of the order dated 20.07.2004 and 20.03.2007. In both the orders it is stated that the appellant's counsel name as Mathew J.Nedumpara. But in fact he was not at all counsel and he did not even file Vakalath in this case. The Tribunal in order dated 20.07.2004 elicited this fact. This clearly shows that the notice must have gone to the said Advocate and not on the Advocate on record. There is absolutely carelessness shown on the part of the Registry. With this the petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte order to pay the 50% of the penalty dated 20.07.2004 apart from that a better affidavit also filed before the First respondent. Subsequently the hearing date was fixed on 08.10.2007 and on that day his counsel had argued the case and the Tribunal were asked by his counsel whether he had complied with the order dated 20.07.2004 and his counsel had informed them that there was no communication of order to him, therefore, he was unaware of the order. He further argued that the order was an exparte order and also said he filed an application to set aside the order. The first respondent insisted on the counsel to deposit the 50% of the penalty amount and the counsel informed the Tribunal about the inability of the petitioner to pay such a huge amount and requested to reduce the amount since the merits of the case is in favour of the petitioner. But the Tribunal had insisted on the counsel to pay the said amount and the counsel also informed the Tribunal to issue an order to that effect since the main appeal itself is dismissed exparte and therefore the interim order would become null and void and therefore the third respondent would not permit him to pay the said sum. Further, the counsel informed that he will verify with the petitioner and inform the Tribunal. In spite of this the petitioner's counsel had received an order from the Tribunal that the order cannot be reviewed and as if his counsel declined to comply the order dated 20.07.2004. Against the said order the petitioner is seeking to quash the order of the First respondent vide order made in Appeal No.205/2004 dated 20.07.2004, 20.03.2007 and 08.10.2007 on the ground that it is arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and failure to exercise the discretion vested in the authorities. Hence, this writ petition.
6.The respondents have not filed their counter statement till now.
7.The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enforcement officers who are attached to the Directorate, Chennai, had searched the premises of the petitioner on 16.03.2002. During the search the Officer seized currency of Rs.1,00,000/- and certain loose sheets at 7.00 p.m. from the petitioner's premises, door No.146, Vardaan Complex, 2nd Floor, Mint Street, Chennai. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on the same day and his son wrote the same at the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai. The petitioner had retracted the statement given before the enforcement officer as involuntary on 18.03.2002. On the same day the petitioner's son also retracted the statement, further a show cause notice was issued based on the complaint filed by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Chennai on 09.09.2002. After receipt of the said show cause notice the petitioner's counsel had replied to the show cause notice and relied upon the documents on 20.01.2003. Thereafter, personal hearing of adjudication proceedings was fixed and the personal hearing was attended by the petitioner's counsel on 23.05.2003. The petitioner's counsel had cross examined the witnesses and the witness turned hostile stating that the officers compelled him to write statements as per their dictation on 08.10.2003. The petitioner's counsel also submitted written arguments. Thereafter, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, adjudicated the case and passed the order in original by imposing a penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- on the petitioner and confiscated Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Section 13 (2) of Foreign Exchange, Management Act, 1999. The said impugned order had been passed on 30.12.2003. The order has been received by the petitioner by post on 03.01.2004. The aggrieved petitioner had filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for foreign exchange, Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi on 19.02.2004.
8.The highly competent counsel Mr.A.Ganesh further submitted that the petitioner and his counsel have not received any communication from the Tribunal pertaining to the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, hence the petitioner's counsel had sent a telegram and also a letter in order to find out the stage of the appeal on 11.05.2004. Thereafter, the Tribunal had sent a communication stating that the appeal hearing was actually fixed on 18.06.2004 but now reposted to 20.07.2004. As such, the Tribunal had not properly communicated the hearing date neither to the petitioner nor to his counsel in advance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner and his counsel are unable to attend the Tribunal for the petitioner's appeal. After knowing the next hearing date i.e. 20.07.2004, the petitioner's counsel sent a request letter for adjournment from 20.07.2004 to some other date due to family function at his residence on the same day. The said requisition letter for adjournment sent by speed post on 12.07.2004. Under these circumstances, the case was taken on 20.07.2004 by the Tribunal and on that day one Mr.Mathew, Advocate, made a representation and requested for time for arguments, but the Tribunal finds that he has no vakalath and the case decided as ex-parte and 50% of the penalty amount dispensed as ordered on 20.07.2004, thereafter the hearing date had not been fixed and no communication was sent to the petitioner and his counsel. Further, the case was decided without hearing the petitioner's side and passed the order, the same was affixed to the residence of the petitioner without serving proper notice to the petitioner. Additionally the case was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited 10% of the penalty amount and also not prosecuting the prosecution case and asked the petitioner to pay the entire penalty amount, the same was claimed by virtue of ex-parte order which has been passed on 20.07.2004. Subsequently, the departmental appeal has been restored and posted the case for further hearing on 08.10.2007. Under the circumstances, the respondents cannot insist on the petitioner to pay the penalty amount.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had cited the following judgment supporting his case:
AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2370 (Sushil Kumar Sabharwal, Appellant v. Gurpreet Singh and others, Respondents) (A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 5, R. 17; O. 9, R. 13 Service of summons Procedure Suit filed by landlord against tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction Service of summons just a day before date of hearing Defendant-tenant alleged to have refused to accept service Process-server neither affixed copy of summons and plaint on wall of premises in question Nor making, tendering of summons, its refusal, and affixation on wall witnessed by persons, identifying defendant and demised premises It amounts to non-service of summons Can be a ground for setting aside ex parte decree Order passed by High Court refusing to set aside ex parte decree without satisfying itself on service of summons Amounts to non-observance of provisions of O. 9, R. 6.
C.R. No.3783 of 1999, D/- 2-2-2000 (Punj and Har), Reversed.
(Paras 8, 12, 13) (B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 9, R. 13), Second Proviso Ex parte decree Setting aside Defence of knowledge Non-service of summons on defendant-tenant in eviction suit Tenant admitting in interpleader suit filed by him of knowledge of pendency of eviction suit filed by landlord in Court of Rent Controller Such knowledge of pendency of suit Cannot be equated with knowledge of date of hearing provided under Second Proviso to O. 9, R. 13.
(Paras 10, 11) AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 258 (Malkiat Singh and another, Appellants v. Joginder Singh and another, Respondents) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 9 R. 13 Ex parte decree Setting aside of Defendants engaging counsel to defend suit filed against them Suit proceeded ex parte and ex parte decree passed on counsel reporting no instructions Neither counsel reporting this fact to defendants nor Court issued notice to them Defendants getting knowledge of ex parte decree only when they approached the counsel Application to set aside decree filed by defendants within 4 days of knowledge Defendants cannot be said to be careless/negligent Ex parte decree liable to be set aside.
C.R. No.5145 of 1996, D/- 13-12-1996 (P & H), Reversed.
(Paras 7, 8) AIR 1978 ALLAHABAD 559 (Sant Singh, Petitioner v. The Dist. Judge, Ballia and others, Respondents) Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No.868 of 1977, D/- 17-8-1978.
Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 41 R. 19 Dismissal of appeal for default No knowledge to counsel about date fixed Dismissal of restoration application held was not proper.
Where a direction was made that information be given for argument on non-compliance of that order is nothing but a mistake of the court itself, and when the court is at fault, it is not proper to find fault with the counsel and to say that the counsel had not been vigilant to know about the date fixed in the case. (Para 4) Held that the appellate authority committed patent error in refusing the restoration application, little realising the mistake on the part of its official and wrongly placing an onerous duty upon the counsel for knowing the date fixed in the case.
AIR 1993 GAUHATI 94 (Kanak Chandra Boro and others, Appellants v. M/s.Kankaria Tea Company and others, Respondents) MA(F) No.106 of 1987, D/- 23-7-1992.
Civil P.C. (1908), O. 9, R. 6 Ex parte decree When permissible Suit for declaration of title etc. - Notice of hearing to counsel for defendant Counsel refusing to accept notice on ground that he is no longer in case Duty of court to issue notice to parties Proceeding with case ex parte Improper. (Para 6) AIR 1998 MADHYA PRADESH 236 (Nandlal Kanoria, Appellant v. National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, Respondents) Misc. Appeal No.36/1997, D/- 25-7-1997.
Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 9, R. 13 Ex parte final decree Setting aside of Suit for realization of amount Ex parte preliminary decree passed against all defendants Application for final decree No service of notice to defendant in final decree proceedings Ex parte final decree set aside.
AIR 1952 Nag 177, AIR 1954 Nag 135 and AIR 1944 Nag 181, Followed.
(Paras 8, 11) AIR 1968 BOMBAY 57 (V 55 C 12) (Miss Devi Ramchand Waswani, Applicant v. S. V. Bastikar, Opponent) Civil Revn. Appln. No.849 of 1966 (With Civil Revn. Appln. No.865 of 1966), D/-20-8-1966, from order of Judge City Civil Court, Bombay, D/-4-7-1966.
(A) Civil P. C. (1908), Order 9, Rule 13 'Sufficient cause' Sufficient cause is not different from good cause Unawareness of party of date of hearing of suit, when amounts to sufficient cause.
There is no difference at all between sufficient cause and good cause. If the cause is good then it would also be sufficient. If a party is unaware of the date of hearing and the unawareness is not due to any fault of his and he had taken all the precautions necessary in this respect or being made aware of the date of hearing of suit then being unaware would be sufficient cause which would prevent a party from appearing in Court. AIR 1964 SC 215, Foll. (Paras 12 and 13) (B) Civil P. C. (1908), Section 144 Section provides for every case of reversal or variation including reversal by Supreme Court, by same Court in same proceedings or by different Court in different proceedings. AIR 1931 Cal 14 and Views of Mukherji, J. in AIR 1931 Cal 42, Dissent. from; AIR 1919 Bom 175 and AIR 1937 Bom 173 and AIR 1949 All 730, Foll. Mulla's Commentary. Ref. (Para 20) AIR 1977 DELHI 7 (M/s.Devi Dayal Textile Company and others, Petitioners v. Nand Lal, Respondent) (A) Civil Procedure Code, Ss. 151, 115, O. 9, R. 9 Order dismissing suit for default passed due to mistake of Court Court can recall it suo motu under its inherent power Order setting aside the dismissal will not be interfered with in revision.
Where a suit is dismissed for default due to a mistake of the Court, and the Court, on the same day, on discovering the mistake recalls the order of dismissal, the subsequent order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. It is not only the jurisdiction and power of the Court, but it is certainly its duty to recall its order, if it finds that the same is invalid and had been passed by a mistake of the Court and would cause injustice to the parties not at fault. Correction of the mistake of the Court can be done by the Court suo motu without any application by the parties concerned, or even if the Court is moved to do so by the parties. AIR 1953 SC 23; AIR 1962 SC 633; AIR 1962 SC 537; AIR 1938 All 8; AIR 1957 All 825 and AIR 1950 Cal 209. Rel. on.
The case is not one under O. 9, R. 9 of the Code, the order of dismissal not having been passed under O. 9, R. 8. AIR 1946 All 506, Rel. on. (Para 7)
8.Procedure where defendant only appears.-Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the reminder.
9.Degree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.-Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.
(2)No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.
AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 606 = 1981 Lab. I. C. 155 (Grindlays Bank Ltd., Appellant v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, Respondents) Industrial Disputes Act (1947), Ss. 11, 10, 17A, 20 Ex parte award Setting aside of Tribunal is competent Fact that it is based on evidence is immaterial Setting aside does not amount to review Tribunal does not become functus officio provided application is filed within 30 days of publication of award. (Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules (1957), Rr. 22, 24; Civil P. C. (1908), Section 113, O. 9, R. 13).
10.The highly competent counsel Mr.M.Dhandapani appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the impugned order has been passed as per the Foreign Exchange and Management Act. The 3rd respondent received the information that the petitioner was indulging in receipt of and material of payments on behalf of and on instructions received from person resident outside India. His premises was searched on 16.03.2002 and seized some documents and also seized a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner's premises. The statement was recorded by the concerned Enforcement Officer as per the statement given by the petitioner and his son. Further, as per the document seized from the petitioner's premises, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,83,20,700/- from the person in India and also made payments to various persons in India i.e. Rs.2,29,75,800/- by an order given by one Mr.Manoharan from Dubai. Further, in order to establish the charge against the petitioner one Mr.Mukesh kumar Ranga, Manjilal Chowdry, Ashgar were examined by the investigation officers, who are attached to the Enforcement Directorate. For the said charges show cause notice was issued a detailed enquiry was conducted, thereafter, the case was proved against the petitioner, therefore, a penalty was imposed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had passed the impugned order since no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, as such the departmental appeal was dismissed. Further, as per the original authority's order, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the penalty amount, the same has not been complied with. Due to non-compliance of interim pre-deposit amount, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the 3rd respondent had issued notice on 28.05.2007 to the petitioner and asked him to deposit the penalty amount a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- within a period of 90 days, failing which the petitioner will be put into civil imprisonment. The very competent counsel Mr.M.Dhandapani vehemently argued that the prosecution case has been established against the petitioner on the strength of documents, documents proof and also duly conducting a comprehensive enquiry.
11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court does find any discrepancy for punishing the writ petitioner herein. This Court's further view that the petitioner had not given crystal clear statement regarding the total payment received i.e. a sum of Rs.1,83,20,700/- from various persons in India and made payments to various persons in India to a sum of Rs.2,29,75,000/- as per the instruction of one Mr.Manohar from Dubai. As per the documents seized from the petitioner, therefore the original authority order as well as appellate Tribunal order are found to be suitable for execution. Hence, the above writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.
14.10.2014
vs/ub
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1.Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange,
Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs,
Government of India,
4th Floor, 'B' Wing,
Janpath (Indian Oil Bhavan),
Janpath,
New Delhi 110 001.
2.Special Director of Enforcement,
Enforcement Directorate,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3.The Deputy Director,
Enforcement Directorate,
Sastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
vs/ub
W.P.Nos.35268 to 35270 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007
14.10.2014