Navnit Talwar vs Registrar, Appellate Tribunal ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2070 Del

13.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 3447/2008

                                            Date of decision: 15th May, 2009

       NAVNIT TALWAR                                          ..... Petitioner
                           Through Mr. Arjun Advocate.

                     versus

       REGISTRAR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE & ORS.
                                                    ..... Respondents
                       Through Ms. Monika Garg, Advocate.
       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 ?

                                 ORDER

%

1. The petitioner, Mr. Navnit Talwar has impugned the order dated 18th

February, 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange,

dismissing his application for pre-deposit of the penalty amount of

Rs.46,85,000/- as a pre condition for hearing his first appeal.

2. The aforesaid penalty of Rs. 46,85,000/- has been imposed on the

petitioner as he was a Director of M/s Reinz Talbros Limited, a company,

which has gone into liquidation. As per the impugned order, the company

W.P. (C) No. 3447/2008 Page 1 under liquidation had repatriated foreign exchange during the period 1994-

1997, but physical proof of import of the goods by producing documents

was not provided.

3. The plea and stand taken by the petitioner is that Official Liquidator

was appointed on 25th February, 2002. The Official Liquidator also seized

the record of the company under liquidation and the relevant records were

not made available to the petitioner in spite of requests including written

applications. It is alleged that the Official Liquidator has filed an FIR with

the police stating that the records of the company have been pilfered and

several records are not available. The petitioner has not been blamed.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the Official Liquidator was appointed

as a Provisional Liquidator on 25th February, 2002 and the first

memorandum was issued by the Directorate of Enforcement subsequently

on 28th May, 2002.

4. I need not examine the contentions raised on merits in details as the

first appeal is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign

Exchange. At this stage, I am only required to examine whether the

dismissal of the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 46,85,000/- as a

pre-condition for entertaining/admitting the appeal is valid and justified.

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the company in question at

W.P. (C) No. 3447/2008 Page 2 one point of time was one of the leading manufacturers of spare parts and

has gone into liquidation. He further states that the entire equipment was

imported and the relevant details are available with the Customs

Department. However, the respondents have not verified and checked the

same. He has drawn my attention to the averments made in the writ

petition with regard to filing of an FIR by the Official liquidator. He has also

drawn my attention to the papers received from an agent from Mumbai,

who had handled some of the imports. Prima facie the appeal raises issues

and contentions which require examination and consideration. The

contentions cannot be rejected as sham.

5. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will deposit a

sum of Rs. 10 lacs with the Enforcement Directorate in two installments of

Rs.5 lacs each. The first installment will be paid by 30th June, 2009 and the

second installment will be paid on or before 31st August, 2009. In addition,

the petitioner is directed to file an undertaking giving details of his

moveable and immovable assets owned by him from 2005 onwards. He

shall also mention details of his bank account in the said undertaking. The

petitioner shall not dispose of his immovable properties without permission

of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. The aforesaid undertaking

will be filed within four weeks.

W.P. (C) No. 3447/2008 Page 3

6. The impugned order dated 18th February, 2008 is accordingly

modified to the extent indicated above. Subject to satisfying and complying

with the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner's appeal will be heard by the

Tribunal in accordance with law. Observations made in this order are for

the purpose of deciding the present writ petition and are tentative and

prima facie. The appeal will be decided without being influenced by the

above observations.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       MAY 15, 2009
       NA/VKR




W.P. (C) No. 3447/2008                                               Page 4