2014 (1) TMI 972

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 03.09.2010, this Court directed the learned standing counsel for the Enforcement Directorate to take notice for the second and third respondents and to get instructions. Pending the writ petition, no interim order was passed. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 23.03.2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was imposed as penalty against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Central Act, 46 of 1973) (shortly "FERA"). This was on account of the petitioner having received a sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/- from non local person on behalf of one Syed Ibrahim of Bahrain, who is a person r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther asserted that the appellate Board orally informed that they have allowed the appeal. But the petitioner was not able to state as to why there was no further proceedings, after the request of the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal in the waiver of pre-deposit application. It is the stand of the petitioner that subsequently, he had received a notice dated 30.10.2007 asking to appear for an enquiry. The petitioner, through his counsel, sent a letter dated 06.11.2007 stating that on 15.12.1994 he was orally informed that his application was allowed and he requested a copy of the order allegedly passed by the Tribunal. But instead of conceding the request, he had issued a fresh notice to appear to argue the application on 01.07.2010....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner are controverted. It is stated that the Presenting Officer of the previous Appellate Board did not pass any orders. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows: "4..... The Board issued notice to the both parties on 15.12.1994 to appear before the Appellate Tribunal Camp duly constituted at Chennai, but the Appellate Tribunal did not pass any orders on 15.12.1994. Amidst, the petitioner herein approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras at Chennai and filed Writ Petition No.18142 of 1994 challenging the Adjudicating Order dated 29.03.1994 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 26.07.1999." It was also claimed that the petitioner has not established a prima facie good case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not challenged after coming into force of FEMA, the act also gives further 60 days from the date of commencement of FEMA. Under Section 35 of FEMA, any person aggrieved against the decision of the Tribunal can also file an appeal to the High Court. 8. Therefore, in the present case, the challenge made by the petitioner to the impugned order, does not stand to legal scrutiny. Except by contending that the earlier Appellate Board had orally allowed the petition for waiver of pre-deposit, the petitioner is not able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that there was such an order in existence. It must also be noted that FEMA is a complete Court by itself and the question of challenging the Tribunal's order in a writ petition under....