2016 (11) TMI 1114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement Act, 1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, so also the Union of India, to refund a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- with interest from 21-12-2010 till 21-3-2014. The petitioner is claiming interest @ 18% (higher interest) from March, 2014. 2. The refund sought is of a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- stated to have been deposited by the petitioner Bank by a cheque dated 16-8-1996. The deposited amount is evidenced by the several receipts which have been issued. Now a claim is laid in this petition for refund of that sum along with interest at 18% per annum from 21-12-2010 till 21-3-2014, and further interest at 18% per annum from 21-3-2014 till realisation. 3. The petitioner states that the predecessor intitle of the present....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid the amount of penalties imposed on them to the Directorate. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioner bank filed Appeal No.220/96 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) against the said Adjudication Order dated 28.06.1996. The ATFE vide order dated 29.12.2010 allowed the said appeal and ordered as under: "14. Now comes the role of appellant in Appeal No.220/96 i.e. M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank, the role of this bank is that an NRE Account was opened in the bank where the cheques issued by M/s Thomas Cook (I) Ltd. were deposited. It is alleged that the bank should have taken proper care and it was their responsibility to look into all these legalities committed in the NRE Account. Merely because the bank has failed to discharge ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal clearly records at para 14 that no penalty could have been imposed on the Bank. The penalty imposed on the Bank has been set aside. Once that penalty has been set aside, then, if no further proceedings were initiated by the respondents, the amount paid by the petitioner's predecessor should have been refunded to the petitioner within a reasonable time. 14. That was not refunded, forcing the petitioner to file a writ petition. Even if we do not agree with Mr. Patil that the employees were parties to the Bank's Appeal and therefore the direction of the Appellate Tribunal must enure to the benefit of these officers, still, we find that the Union of India took considerable time to refund the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. That....