Madras High Court
The Union Of India vs M.Sakunthala on 22 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A(MD)NO.1762 of 2000
The Union of India,
represented by the Director of Enforcement,
Enforcement Directorate,
New Delhi. :Appellant/Respondent
.vs.
M.Sakunthala :Respondent/Appellant
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 54 of the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973(Act 46 of 1973) praying
this Court to set aside the order made in Review Petition in Appeal
Nos.110 of 1984,dated 28.2.1986 by the Foreign Exchange
Appellate Board.
For Appellant :Mr.Karthikeya Venkatachala
pathy
for Mr.R.Vijaya Rajan
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order
http://www.judis.nic.in
passed in Review Petition in Appeal No.110 of 1984, on the file of
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi.
2.It is alleged that the respondent Sakunthala had received
payment unauthorisedly in her residential premises at Madurai. It
happened, however, on information when her residence was
searched under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973. The Bank Passbook and the list were also seized by the
authorities. In her statement, it was stated by the respondent
Sakunthala that her husband Muthupal Chettiar was a partner in
Kumaran and Co in Malaysia. He had arranged for the payment of
Rs.75,000/- to her about one and a half months prior to the search.
The said amount was received in two instalments at Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.35,000/- through certain unknown persons and it was meant
for Shri N.Loganathan. When the said Loganathan was contacted
and examined by the appellant/Enforcement Authorities, it is stated
by him that he is working in Kumaran and Co, Malaysia. The
husband of the respondent is a partner in the said company. As he
had requested the husband of the respondent to send the amout, it
was arranged by him to be received by the said Sakunthala to be
handed over to the said Loganathan. The receipt of the said
amount of Rs.75,000/- was in violation of the provisions of Section
9(1)(b) and 9(1)(a) of the 'Act' and a show-cause notice was issued
http://www.judis.nic.in
and an explanation was sought for from the
respondent/Sakunthala. After enquiry, the authorties had awarded
Rs.10,000/- as fine for having committed the offence of breach of
Section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the 'Act'. The above order was
passed on 16.2.1983,. Later, the said Sakunthala preferred a
Review before the Appellate Board.The Appellate Board had found
that there was a accidental slip and held in paragraph No.7 that
''After giving careful thought to the contentions of the parties, I
find this to be a fit case where benefit of doubt should be given to
the appellant at S.No.1 and 2 and therefore,hold that the charge
against her have not been established''. The above observation was
made by the Appellate Board upon satisfying that the accidental
slip had occurred in the order attributable to an over-sight that
the non-receipt of Rs.75,000/- by the appellant at S.No.2 in the
order conflicting with the conclusion reached in Appeal No.110 of
1984. Thus giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant at S.No.2,
the Appellate Board has set aside the earlier order passed imposing
punishment of fine. The said order is now under challenge in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Enforcement Directorate
contending that the Appellate Board has no power to review its
onw order, as it is not a clerical or arithmetical error.
3.Section 65 provides Correction of clerical errors:--
http://www.judis.nic.in
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order passed by
the Appellate Board or the adjudicating officer under this Act, or
errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at
anytime, be corrected by the Appellate Board or the adjudicating
officer or his successor in office, as the case may be. But the order
in the review was passed only after hearing the authorities also.
The learned counsel for the appellant is also not able to say what
had happened after filing of the appeal. Whether the amounts are
paid and whether the Petitioner is alive or not? Though the
vakalath has been filed on behalf of the respondent, there is nobody
appearing on behalf of her either in person or through counsel
despite more than three chances have been given. Other than the
above order, there is no other papers in the bundle. Therefore, we
are constrained to confirm the order passed by the Appellate Board
while dismissing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
22.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
http://www.judis.nic.in
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Chairman,
Foreign Exchange Appellate Board,
New Delhi.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)NO.1762 of 2000
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
