Delhi High Court
Nitin Ramniklal Shan & Another vs Special Director & Another on 27 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5284-85/2006
Date of decision: 27th July, 2009
NITIN RAMNIKLAL SHAN & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate.
Versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Dalip Mehra & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
Mishra, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
%
1. The petitioners, Mr. Nitin Ramniklal Shah and Mr. Mahesh Ramniklal
Shah, have filed the present petition against the order dated 6 th March,
2006 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange rejecting their
applications for dispensation of pre-deposits of the penalty amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,20,000/- respectively imposed on them by the
Adjudicating Authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973(
Act, for short).
2. The allegation against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that they had
purchased NRI cheques of Rs.12,21,057/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively
W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 1
from one Mr. Sanjiv Goel. It is alleged that these cheques were purchased
after paying consideration of Rs.16,04,000/- and Rs.17,00,000/- lacs and
the petitioners had violated provisions of Section 9 (1)(d) of the Act. It is
also claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to protection granted
under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign
Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 and Remittances
in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal is non-speaking and does not deal with
the contentions raised by the petitioners. He has also drawn my attention
to order dated 30th June, 1997 passed by Foreign Exchange Regulation
Appellate Board and it is stated that in identical facts the penalty orders
were quashed. This aspect has not been considered by the Appellate
Tribunal.
4. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners was
asked to obtain instructions whether they are ready and willing to deposit
part penalty amount and furnish security in the form of immovable
property to protect the interest of the respondents and to ensure recovery
of demand in case of an adverse order. Learned counsel for the
petitioners states that the petitioners will deposit Rs.3 lacs with the
respondents and furnish security of an immovable property to the
satisfaction of the respondents. The aforesaid payment of Rs. 3,00,000/-
will be made within a period of four weeks from today and security bond
with papers will be furnished within four weeks. On payment being
W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 2
deposited and security being furnished and accepted, the attachment
orders issued by the Directorate of Enforcement in respect of bank
accounts in State Bank of India, Mandavi branch, Mumbai, will be
withdrawn. The respondents will be entitled to enforce and encash the
security in case of an adverse order against the petitioner.
5. The petitioners will also file an affidavit giving details of their bank
accounts and details of their others immovable property(ies). The said
affidavit will be filed with the Directorate of Enforcement within four
weeks. The impugned order dated 6th March, 2006 is modified in terms of
the present order. The appeal filed by the petitioners will be disposed on
merits after aforesaid payment is made and security is furnished. It is
clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
appeal and the learned Tribunal will disposed of the appeal without being
influenced by any observation made in this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
DASTI.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JULY 27, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 3
