2012 (6) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent No.7 Sh. B.N. Jha and of Rs. 20,00,000/- on respondent No.4 Bank of Baroda in terms of Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The said penalties were imposed for contravention of Sections 6(4) & 6(5) read with Section 13A-10 of Exchange Control Manual, 1993 i.e., of granting of loan to the petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and relending of the same to the respondent No.5 M/s. Prime Petro Products Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director Sh. R.K. Mishra impleaded as respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the High of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for getting the matter investigated from the Central Bureau of Investigation and/or the Central Revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e privy to or in the know of the illegality committed and no case for imposition of penalty against them was made out. 6. This petition challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal has been preferred after nearly two years therefrom. The counsel for the petitioner however urges that the grievance of the petitioner is of the petitioner having not been made a party to the appeal and having not been heard. It is contended that the petitioner thus had no knowledge of the order and has filed the present petition immediately on coming to know thereof. 7. A reading of the order of the Enforcement Directorate appealed before the Appellate Tribunal does not show the presence of the petitioner before the Enforcement Directorate either. In fact, ....