Delhi High Court
Ashok Narain vs Director, Enforcement ... on 9 December, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13501/2009
ASHOK NARAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTOR,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS .... Respondent
Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. C.S.
Chauhan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 09.12.2009
This writ petition by Mr. Ashok Narain is directed against the order
dated 14th October, 2009, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign
Exchange dismissing his application for waiver of pre deposit of penalty
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed under the provision of Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973.
2. The said penalty was imposed vide order dated 7th March, 1991 and
relates to the show cause notice dated 10th May, 1982, issued for acquiring
foreign exchange in contravention of the said Act. During the course of
hearing, it is pointed out that value of the said foreign exchanges, as per the
exchange rates prevalent in 1980-82, would be about Rs. 1,50,000/-. Counsel
for the petitioner states that the figures mentioned in the show cause notice
W.P.(C)13501/2009 Page 1
and relied upon in the adjudicating order are based only on the statements
of the petitioner and there is no corroborative evidence in support thereof.
3. It is admitted that the show cause notice was issued in 1982 and the
adjudication order was passed on 7th March, 1991. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he was working as an employee of the British Airways and
had made 12 visits to abroad, but there were hardly any withdrawals in
foreign exchange for the said visits. It is alleged that the petitioner used to
go abroad and make purchases in bulk and bring them to India.
4. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the adjudication order in
1991. The said appeal was not taken up for hearing till 14th October, 2009.
On the said date, the application of the petitioner for waiver of pre deposit
was dismissed with a direction that the petitioner should deposit the entire
penalty amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is not
assessed to Income Tax and is residing in one bed room set in Saket, Malviya
Nagar. It is further stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that his wife has
expired and he does not own any other property and his son is working in
Mumbai as Delivery Leader with Bank of America and resides in a rented
accommodation. Along with the said affidavit, the petitioner has filed copy of
telephone bill and electricity bill. As per telephone bill, his monthly bill is
W.P.(C)13501/2009 Page 2
about Rs.350/-. The electricity bill reveals that the petitioner had made
payments of Rs. 4,570/- and Rs. 3,466/- towards electricity charges for the
bill-periods June-July and August-October, 2009 respectively.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects and facts in mind, it is directed
that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one
month with the Enforcement Directorate and shall furnish security of the
immovable property i.e. of the premises No. BK-27-D, Saket, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi, to the Enforcement Directorate. He shall also file an undertaking
with the Enforcement Directorate that he shall not encumber, transfer or
alienate the said immovable property. Security and undertaking will be
submitted within four weeks with the respondent, Enforcement Directorate.
The impugned order dated 14th October, 2009 is modified to the extent
indicated above.
The writ petition is disposed of. Observations made in this order are
for the purpose of disposing of the writ petition and will not influence the
appellate tribunal when it decides the appeal on merits.
Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 09, 2009
NA/P
W.P.(C)13501/2009 Page 3
