Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional order requiring pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty amount and furnishing of an unconditional bank guarantee under section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier granted conditional dispensation from the full pre-deposit requirement by directing the appellant-company to deposit 10% of the penalty and the Managing Director to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee for the penalty amount within the stipulated time, failing which the appeals would stand dismissed. The appellants repeatedly failed to comply, did not remain present, and did not establish any bona fide effort to satisfy the conditions. The Tribunal therefore held that there was total violation of its interim order and that no equity remained in favour of the appellants.
Conclusion: The appeals were held liable to dismissal for non-compliance with the conditional pre-deposit and bank guarantee order.
Final Conclusion: The conditional relief granted earlier was not complied with, so the appeals could not be entertained and were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to comply with a Tribunal's conditional order for pre-deposit and security under the statutory dispensation provision justifies dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.