1995 (7) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es situated at No. C-10, Housing Board Quarters, Todhunder Nagar, Saidapet, Madras-15. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as `the Act'). After full-fledged enquiry, he has passed an order on 4-11-1993, imposing penalty of Rs.18,100/- for such contravention. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was seized from the petitioner's house and that amount was adjusted towards the penalty and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance of Rs. 8,100/-. 3.Against the said order of the second respondent the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Section 52 of the Act. Along with the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed by the petitioner under this provision. Hence, the petitioner is helpless and has no other forum except to approach this court for relief. 6.The Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, in the absence of any order from the first respondent, either granting stay of the operation of the order of the second respondent or dispensing with the deposit of the penalty amount imposed by him it is always open to the second respondent to take action for recovery of the penalty amount imposed by him. He also cited an unreported judgment made in Kamal Batcha v. The Deputy Director of  Enforcement -  (W.P.  No. 14431  of  1993).&n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner or allowing the same by dispensing with the deposit of the penalty amount. So long as the application is pending the petitioner's liability to deposit the same ........ in question. 8.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the third respondent dated 27-1-1995. So virtually this is not an order but it is only a direction issued to the petitioner by the third respondent, requesting the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount pursuant to the order of the second respondent dated 25-10-1994. As long as the petitioner is not able to get an order of stay from the Appellate Authority and produce the same before the third respondent, the third respondent is well within the jurisdiction in issuing the dire....