2017 (10) TMI 908

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant / Applicant stating that in the impugned order dated 5th July, 2016 the Tribunal did not discuss the prima-facie case which were initial ingredient for deciding the Stay Application. The judgments have also not been properly discussed and it has wrongly come to the conclusion that the said judgments are applicable to the present case. The various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Applicant. 2. We have gone through the impugned order dated 16th July, 2016 where in the application for Stay was decided. It appears to us that in the said order all the aspects raised by the parties have been discussed. The relevant aspect of Para- 9, 10, 11 and 12 are as under: "9. We have considered the su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mers Vs. Union of India, (2011) 107 S C L 183 (Delhi). 11. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and the case laws, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met, if the appellant company is directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) out of the amount of total penalty imposed against it and rest of the appellants in Appeal No. 28 and 29 of 2014 are directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) each out of the amount of total penalty imposed against them through the Impugned Order within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and all the applicants/appellants further furnish reliable security for 20% of the amount of total penalty imposed against each of the applicants/appellants within ....