A.S. Aneja @ Amarjit Singh Aneja vs Union Of India & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3895 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              W.P(C) No.7254/2009 & CM No. 2974/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 22.09.2009

A.S. ANEJA @ AMARJIT SINGH ANEJA                .... Petitioners
                Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate.

                                   Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                   .... Respondents
                 Through:          Mr. K. Singhal and Mr. Vineet
                                   Malhotra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                 YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                    NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported                   NO
           in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

*

1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 7th September,

2007 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (hereinafter to

be referred as „Appellate Tribunal‟) in Appeal No. 2 of 2007 titled

"Amarjit Singh Aneja Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate",

dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking dispensation with

the pre-deposit of the amount of penalty.

2. The petitioner had filed Appeal No. 2 of 2007 against the

Adjudicating Order No. DD(AV)/3/Adj./DZ/06 dated 11th July, 2006

imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs for alleged contravention of Section

8(1) read with Section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,

1973.

3. The petitioner had filed an application seeking dispensation with

the pre-deposit of the amount of penalty on the ground of undue

hardship and prima facie case on the basis of retracted admission

of co-noticee. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the petitioner in

person directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4 lacs after adjusting the

amount allegedly lying with the Directorate of Enforcement of Rs. 3

lacs.

4. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the order

and an review application was filed relying on Dwarka Das vs. State

of Andhra Pradesh (1999) 3 SCC 500 and UPSRT Corporation vs.

Imtiaz Hussain 2005 (10) SCC 497. The application was dismissed

by order dated 7th September, 2007 which is challenged by the

petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

petitioner had filed 40 appeals before the Appellate Tribunal

impugning various penalty orders passed by the Adjudicating

Authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In

these appeals, which were filed before the Appellate Tribunal, total

penalty imposed on the petitioner was Rs.2 Crores which was

imposed by separate orders and in respect of which dispensation

applications were filed. Against one of the order dismissing the

application for dispensation of pre-deposit a writ petition filed being

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1344 of 2008 titled A.S. Aneja @ Amarjit

Singh Aneja vs. Union of India & Anr. an order dated 5th May, 2009

has been passed. By the said order dated 5th May, 2009, the

petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.22.15 Lacs towards the

penalty amount of Rs. Two Crores made in all the appeals which

were pending before the Appellate Tribunal in which the applications

for dispensation from pre-deposits were dismissed.

6. Since the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 7.5 lacs with the

Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner was permitted to deposit the

balance amount of Rs. 15 lacs with the Adjudicating Officer in three

equal installments of Rs. 5 lacs each.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has already deposited Rs. 10 lacs and the balance amount

of Rs. 5 lacs was to be deposited by 15th September, 2009. The

learned counsel further contends that for depositing the balance

amount of Rs. 5 lacs, the petitioner has already filed an application

for extension of time.

8. In view of the order dated 5th May, 2009 passed in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 1344 of 2008 titled A.S Aneja @ Amarjit Singh Aneja vs.

Union of India & Anr., the present petition is also disposed of subject

to the petitioner depositing the amount as ordered by order dated 5th

May, 2009 passed in WP(C) 1344 of 2008 and in compliance with the

terms and conditions imposed in the said writ petition. The

petitioner is also directed to file an affidavit and undertaking before

the Adjudicating Authority giving details of all his assets; moveable

and immovable. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking that he

will not sell, encumber or part with possession of his immovable

assets without prior permission of the Adjudicating Officer. The

petitioner shall also file and execute the surety deed in respect of his

immovable properties which are on rent and the petitioner will also

furnish full details of his bank accounts to the Adjudicating Officer.

9. The petitioner, however, will be permitted to withdraw the

money from his bank account for his day-to-day needs and he shall

also furnish monthly statements of his bank account to the

Adjudicating Officer.

10. In the facts and circumstances and pursuant to above stated

conditions, the Appellate Tribunal will hear the Appeal No.2 of 2007

against the adjudicating order 7th September, 2007. The interim

order dated 2nd March, 2009 is thus modified to this extent and the

present writ petition is disposed of. The pending application also

stands disposed of as well. Parties are, however, left to bear their

own costs.

September 22, 2009                              ANIL KUMAR, J.
'sb