TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akara.P., Senior Counsel for R-1 and 2 JUDGMENT These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions filed by the present appellants. By the impugned common judgment and order, the writ petitions were rejected by the learned Single Judge. Out of the three petitions, one was filed by the Company, Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., one was filed by a former director and the other by a director of the Company. In the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge was to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, 'FEMA'). There was a challenge in the petitions to the show-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge is that the authority issued a show-cause after predetermining the entire issue. Our attention is invited to various paragraphs of the show-cause notice in support of the said contention. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-company, the authority which issued the show-cause notice has already concluded the issues and there is nothing to be decided. The second ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company is that the proceedings are malafide and malice is writ large on the face of the proceedings. He pointed out as to how the proceedings have been initiated against the company under different enactments. He Invited our attention tocertain documents to show that only in view of the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that firstly, the adjudication order has been made knowing fully well that the appeals were pending before the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the adjudicating authority ought to have stayed its hands. The second submission is that the remedy under Section 19 of the FEMA is not an efficacious remedy. Thirdly, it was submitted that as the show-cause notice is completely illegal, if it is set aside, the adjudication order passed during the pendency of the appeals will not survive. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the present writ appeals cannot be said to have become infructuous by virtue of passing an order of adjudication. The reliance was placed by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls, it cannot be said that the writ appeals have become infructuous. We agree with the said submission made by the appellants. It may be also correct that when the show-cause notice is quashed and set aside, the order of the adjudicating authority will not survive. These writ appeals arise out of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question is whether writ appeals should be entertained. 10. Against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred these appeals on 17th November 2017. It appears that on 20th December 2018, a notice was served on the appellants by the Assistant Director (Adjudication), Directorate of Enforcement, informing that the adjudicating authority has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 6th October 2017. The present appeals were pending from 17th November 2017. The adjudicating authority granted enough time to the appellants to seek interim relief in these appeals. The hearing was fixed one year after the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The averments made in the application for amendment in W.A.No.6484/2017 show that notice of the date fixed before the adjudicating authority was served on 27th December 2018. The appellants took the risk of not attending be....