A.S. Aneja @ Amarjit Singh Aneja vs Union Of India & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3896 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    W.P(C) No.7253/2009 & CM No. 2972/2009

%                          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 in                   NO
       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. 1 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. 1 of 2007 against the

Adjudicating Order No. SDE/(PKD)III/14/2006 dated 28th April, 2006

imposing a penalty of Rs. 7 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. 1 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