TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Tribunal's Order on FERA Penalties</h1> <h3>Nina Padma Singh Versus Union of India</h3> Nina Padma Singh Versus Union of India - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange regarding penalty under FERA for loan transactions involving Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and M/s. Prime Petro Products Ltd. Appeal against penalties imposed on Bank of Baroda and its Senior Manager. Petitioner not made a party in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Grievance of petitioner regarding lack of knowledge and hearing in the case. Lack of legal provision entitling petitioner to be a party in the appeal. Prejudice suffered by petitioner from Appellate Tribunal's order. Seizure of petitioner's account with the Bank. Remedies available to petitioner for challenging the seizure. Appealability of Appellate Tribunal's order to High Court.Analysis:The case involves a challenge to the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, which allowed the appeals of respondent No.7, a Senior Manager at Bank of Baroda, and respondent No.4, Bank of Baroda, against penalties imposed under FERA for loan transactions involving a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and M/s. Prime Petro Products Ltd. The penalties were imposed for contravention of statutory provisions related to loan transactions. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Bank and its official had exercised due diligence and were not aware of any illegality, thus ruling out the imposition of penalties.The petitioner, who was not made a party in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, raised concerns about lack of knowledge and hearing in the case. However, the court noted that there was no legal provision entitling the petitioner to be a party in such appeals. The petitioner's argument that being affected by the order due to the seizure of her account with the Bank was also dismissed, as the orders did not address the account seizure, and any grievances related to it should be pursued through separate remedies.Furthermore, the Enforcement Directorate pointed out that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was appealable to the High Court, suggesting that the petitioner had remedies available through such an appeal rather than a writ petition. The court ultimately found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, highlighting that the petitioner's grievances did not warrant challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order through a writ petition.
TaxTMI 