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>Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision in Special Leave Petition, Emphasizes Statutory Remedies</h1> <h3>M. UMESH Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT</h3> M. UMESH Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - 2021 (377) E.L.T. 787 (SC) Issues involved:1. Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging High Court judgment regarding statutory remedy2. Exemption from pre-deposit requirement for petitioner in FEMA violations case3. Appeal filing deadline and limitation period4. Discharge of Advocate-on-Record and representation by Official Liquidator5. Agreement with High Court view on pursuing statutory appeal1. Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging High Court judgment regarding statutory remedy:The Supreme Court addressed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a High Court judgment that the petitioner must avail of the statutory remedy, as the competent authority had issued a final order. The Court agreed with the High Court's view, emphasizing the necessity for the petitioner to follow the statutory appeal process.2. Exemption from pre-deposit requirement for petitioner in FEMA violations case:The petitioner, represented by a Senior Counsel, argued that they had no involvement in the company's affairs after resigning and should not be compelled to pay a pre-deposit amount for FEMA violations. After considering both sides' arguments, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to exempt the petitioner from the pre-deposit requirement if they choose to appeal, ensuring the petitioner would not be non-suited for filing the appeal beyond the limitation period.3. Appeal filing deadline and limitation period:The Court instructed the petitioner to file the appeal within three weeks, with a warning that failure to do so would result in the withdrawal of the limited relief granted regarding the limitation period. The Appellate Authority was directed not to non-suit the petitioner for exceeding the limitation period due to pursuing remedies before the High Court and the Supreme Court.4. Discharge of Advocate-on-Record and representation by Official Liquidator:In another matter, the Court allowed the discharge of the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and accepted the representation by the Official Liquidator. The Court directed necessary amendments to the petition and scheduled the matter for a hearing after two weeks based on the Official Liquidator's request.5. Agreement with High Court view on pursuing statutory appeal:Regarding a separate SLP, the Court concurred with the High Court's opinion that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process in light of the final order issued by the competent authority. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within three weeks, emphasizing that the Appellate Authority should not non-suit the petitioner based on the limitation period if the appeal is filed in time.Overall, the Supreme Court's judgments focused on upholding the necessity of following statutory remedies, providing exemptions in specific circumstances, and ensuring fair treatment regarding appeal deadlines and limitation periods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
