TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, certain information/documents have been called for from M/s.Satyam Computer Services Limited under Section 37 of the Act. Some of the officials of the said concern were also examined. Though the petitioner was one of the officials, he did not appear for enquiry. 2. On a complaint given by the third respondent, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent. The sum and substance of the complaint is extracted hereunder: "26.Shri B.Ramalinga Raju, the then Chairman, B.Ramaraju, the then Managing Director, Ram Mynampati, the then Board Director, T.R.Anand, the then Director & Senior Vice President, D.Subramanian, the then Director & Senior Vice President, Keshab Panda, the then Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t I was promoted to the post of President for some businesses and was subsequently nominated to the Board of Satyam only in August 2006." 4. Thus, the petitioner did acknowledge the fact that he was working in Technical Operations in India from June, 1999 and thereafter, from August, 2001 working in New Jersey and in the year 2003, he was promoted to the post of President and then nominated to the Board in August, 2006. By the order dated 13.02.2015, the first respondent, on consideration of the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, formed an opinion that the adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 should be held by following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions: (i)Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar Vs. Union of India and the Directorate of Enforcement (2013(5)ALLMR551) (ii)Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta and Others ((2015) 1 SCC 103) 8. Mr.Dhandapani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even as per the reply of the petitioner, he was involved in the affairs of the concern, even much prior to the nomination as a Board of Director. During the tenure of the petitioner, he has not taken appropriate steps to realise the pending export bills. What is initiated is only an adjudication. The petitioner instead of cooperating with the same has rushed to this Court. As against the final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f, as recorded earlier, that he was working with the concern in different capacities. Section 42 of the Act has to be seen contextually. It deals with the contravention by the company with the consent and connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company as the case may be. Merely because a person was not a director, but in other capacity, with a role attributable to neglect, the rigour of Section 42 of the Act would not be taken away. Adjudication is with reference to the petitioner qua the affairs of the concern. Reliance has been made on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta and Others ((2015) 1 SCC 103). There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority to proceed further. 12. The decision of this Court made in W.P.No.20592 of 2014 dated 25.8.2014 (Ramakrishna Setty v. The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Southern Region, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-6) would be apposite and para 10 of the said order is extracted hereunder:- "10.Therefore, the scheme of Section 4 actually provides opportunities at the every stage to the noticee. The forming of an opinion at the stage of show cause notice and receipt of reply, as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, is almost akin to the forming of an opinion by a disciplinary authority to hold or not an enquiry, upon receipt of a reply to a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, I do not think that there is....