FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012 of Shri Harish Kumar @ Rinku v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patiala

ATFP26 Jul 2017FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the review and the interim application, waiving the pre-deposit of penalty. The Tribunal held that the appellant's financial condition justified dispensing with the pre-deposit, noting no contrary arguments from the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the appellant.

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012 of Shri Harish Kumar @ Rinku v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patiala — ATFP (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT

¶2

AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012

¶4

Shri Harish Kumar @ Rinku … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patiala … Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant : Shri T.K. Gadoo, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Prashant Kumar Pandey, Legal Consultant & Ms. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER ORDER 26.07.2017

¶9

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant in its review petition has referred

¶11

para 6 & 8 of the order under review. The same reads as under:

¶12

6. Regarding undue hardship which may be caused due to the deposit of penalty, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the financial condition of the appellant is very weak. He has been residing in House No. 1969, Rajpura Town, Punjab, on rent from the last many years. In support of his arguments he has filed an affidavit of Shri Harish Kumar S/o Shri Polhar Dass, R/o House No. 1983, Rajpura Town, Distt. Patiala, Punjab. On the perusal of the affidavit and a copy of the deed of conveyance filed therewith makes it abundantly clear that the father of the appellant Late Shri Kanwar Bhan had been residing in the aforesaid rented house No. 1969 and after the death of his father the appellant has been residing in that house. Further, the financial status of the appellant has been clarified in paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 of the application filed by him which read as under:-

¶13

3. The applicant is an unemployed person living with the generosity of the Management of the nearby Gurudwara where the applicant and his family are having their daily meals in return of his help to the distribution of free meal to the devotees and also to the conduct of daily prayers in the Gurudwara.

¶14

4. The applicant being an unemployed person does not have any income, is not an income tax payee and does not have any other financial resources to make the pre-deposit of

¶15

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

the penalty. If the pre-deposit is insisted upon, it would amount to depriving the applicant of his right to appeal.

¶18

5. The applicant does not have any movable and immovable property and does not have any bank balance.

¶19

8. In view of the above discussion, it is obvious that the predeposit of penalty imposed on the appellant would cause undue hardship to him. As such, this Tribunal in the interest of justice dispense the appellant with the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed on him. So far as the safeguard of the realization of penalty is concerned, there is allegation on the appellant to be active in hawala business and for this reason, we think it proper under the circumstances to impose the condition of such dispensation of predeposit that for safeguarding the realization of the penalty imposed on him, the appellant is directed to give bank guarantee amounting to the penalty imposed to the respondent for its realization within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the appeal will be dismissed on this ground alone. The application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. The appeal is fixed on 30.01.2014 for reporting the compliance of this order by the appellant. The order is pronounced in the open Tribunal.”

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant states that once there is findings in favour of the appellant that pre deposit of penalty if imposed on the appellant would cause undue hardship to him, the learned Acting Chairman ought to have passed the interim order without any condition. The same term of hardship has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. There is a force in the submission made by the counsel of the appellant. Nothing contrary has been produced and argued before us on behalf of the respondent. In view of the findings arrived at by the then Acting Chairman the review is allowed. Interim application is allowed and pre deposit of amount of penalty is waived.

¶21

Both the parties desire to file the written synopsis.

¶22

List on 8^th December, 2017.

¶23

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶24

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶25

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶26

New Delhi, 26^th July, 2017 ‘d’ FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012

¶27

Page 2 of 2

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012 of Shri Harish Kumar @ Rinku v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-25/Patiala/2012 of Shri Harish Kumar @ Rinku v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patiala

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