Dismissed

FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010 of Shri Darshan Singh v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab

ATFP6 Sept 2017FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed restoration applications for appeals that were already dismissed for non-compliance of a pre-deposit order. After noting a lapse of over seven years and lack of response from the appellant, the Tribunal held the restoration petitions not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Applications for restoration of review petitions and appeals are dismissed.

FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010 of Shri Darshan Singh v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab — ATFP (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-FE-19/PUNJAB/2010

¶3

Shri Darshan Singh … Appellant Versus The Special Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab

¶4

FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010 Shri Darshan Singh … Appellant Versus

¶5

The Special Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant : Shri Raman Goklaney, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant & Mrs. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER ORDER 06.09.2017

¶8

FPA-FE-19/PUNJAB/2010 & FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010

¶9

On 26^th October, 2009 the application on the issue of pre-deposit of penalty amount had been disposed. The operative part of para 5 of the order reads as under:-

¶10

“5. In the light of the above legal discussions after considering the statutory schemes and the financial hardship pleaded by the appellants this Tribunal allow dispensation of the 20% of the penalty amount but directed the appellant to deposit the 80% respective penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which this appeal will be dismissed on this ground alone. The matter will be listed on 10.12.2009.”

¶11

FPA-FE-19 & 274/PUNJAB/2010

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

Thereafter the appellant filed the review petition which were dismissed by the order dated 7^th January, 2010, even the appeals were also dismissed for non compliance of order dated 26^th October, 2009. The operative part of the order referred in para 2 and 6 are read as under:-

¶14

“2. These two appeals filed against a common adjudication order No. SDE(PKD)/I/3/2009 dated 30.06.2009 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on Darshan Singh i.e. appellant in appeal No. 274/09 and Rs. 1 lakh on Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur i.e. appellant in appeal No. 276/09 for the reasons of receiving payment locally in India by or under instructions person resident outside India in contravention of Section 9(1)(b) read with Section 64(2) of FER Act 1973. Besides separate penalty imposed on other co-noticees who are not in appeal before us. These appeals filed along with applications for dispensation. By an order dated 26.10.2009, after hearing the lengthy arguments from Shri Gagan Inder Singh, Advocate, this Tribunal while granting dispensation of 20% of the penalty amount directed the appellants to deposit 80% of the respective penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The said order clearly spelt out the consequence of non-compliance thereof that these appeals will be dismissed on this ground alone. Appellants are neither present nor represented on subsequent days namely 10.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 as well as on today. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, appearing for the respondents states that the appellants have not complied with the said order of predeposit dated 26.10.2009 and submits dismissal of these appeals for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit passed in terms of the provisions of Section 5(2) FER Act 1973.”

¶15

6. In view of the above circumstances, these appeals are required to be dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit order dated 26.10.2009. An order is passed accordingly. These appeals are dismissed and the impugned order is sustained and maintained.”

¶16

It is informed to us that none of the order i.e. 26^th October, 2009

¶17

and 7^th January, 2010 was challenged by the appellant in the higher court rather the application for review petition which were decided on merit.

¶18

In the interest of justice, equity and fairplay, we have again given suggestion to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether his

¶19

FPA-FE-19 & 274/PUNJAB/2010

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

client prepared to pre-deposit the amount as per order dated 6^th October, 2009 so that the appeals be considered on merit. There is no response from the side of the learned counsel for the appellant although the application for the restoration of the review was otherwise not maintainable. It appears from the record that more than seven years have passed. There is no (positive) response on behalf of the appellant for compliance of pre-deposit amount. The present applications for restoration of the review petitions is otherwise not maintainable and the same are dismissed.

¶22

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶23

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶24

New Delhi, 06^th September, 2017

¶25

‘d’

¶26

FPA-FE-19 & 274/PUNJAB/2010

¶27

Page 3 of 3

FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010 of Shri Darshan Singh v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-274/PUNJAB/2010 of Shri Darshan Singh v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Punjab

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

Similar cases