Disposed

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011 of Ms. Dinar Diamonds P. Ltd. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP24 Aug 2017FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal noted the appellant failed to comply with an interim order modified on April 12, 2016, requiring a bank guarantee. Although the appellant filed a writ petition, no stay was granted. The Tribunal granted a final one-week opportunity to comply.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity granted to comply within four weeks; otherwise, appeal decided as service of default.

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011 of Ms. Dinar Diamonds P. Ltd. v/s The… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT

¶2

AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011

¶4

Ms. Dinar Diamonds P. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Mr. Deepender Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant Ms. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 24.08.2017

¶8

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011

¶9

As per the provisions of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act 2017, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) has been merged with the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act 1976, w. e. f. 26.05.2017. Files have been received by this Tribunal on 01.07.2017.

¶10

In the present case the interim order earlier passed was modified

¶11

vide order dated 12^th April, 2016. The operative part of the order reads as under:

¶12

In view of the peculiar circumstances and in consideration of the fact that of late we have not been insisting on demanding the bank guarantee (s) on the ground that now the banks are insisting on issuing bank guarantee only when the entire amount for which bank guarantee is sought is deposited. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to modify the order dated, 09.01.2015 to the limited extent and direct that in addition to furnishing the bank guarantee (s) of 85% amount in the alternative. The order, dated 09.01.2015 shall stand modified to this limited extent. The modification applications are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. List on 04.07.2016 for reporting compliance of the interim order, dated 09.01.2015.

¶13

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Admittedly, the appellant has failed to comply with the said order. The Charted Accountant of the appellant submits that the appellant has filed the writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to quash orders dated 9^th January, 2015 and 14^th April, 2016. He admits that Stay has not been granted by the Hon’ble High Court. He has informed us that the next date of hearing is fixed on 1^st September, 2017. Admittedly, there is no interim order in favor of the Appellant. Thus, the appellant is liable to comply with the order dated 12^th April, 2016. One final opportunity is granted to the appellant to comply the same within four weeks otherwise the appeal will be decided in accordance with law for non-compliance of order.

¶16

List on 28^th September, 2017.

¶17

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶18

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶19

New Delhi, 24^th August, 2017

¶20

‘K’

¶21

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011

¶22

Page 2 of 2

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011 of Ms. Dinar Diamonds P. Ltd. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-103/MUM/2011 of Ms. Dinar Diamonds P. Ltd. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases