The Appellate Tribunal recorded the appellant's compliance with a Kolkata High Court order requiring a 25% pre-deposit via demand drafts. The file was listed for future hearing after the respondent was granted time to confirm. No disposition was made in this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-FE-408/KOL/2005
M/s Tata Korf Engg. … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Sh. Farookh Razack, Sr. Advocate For the respondent : Shri Parshant Pandey, L.C. Ms. Aagam Kaur, L.C. CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER 21.08.2017
FPA-FE-408/KOL/2005
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. The file in the above said matter has been received by this Tribunal on 1st July, 2017.
The learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the order dated 10th March, 2016 passed in W.P. no. 1824/2005 of Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in the matter of M/s Tata Korf Engg. Service Ltd. & Ors Vs. The Chairperson Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange & Ors. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
FPA-FE-408/KOL/2005
Page 1 of 3
In view of the offer of the petitioner before me to deposit the 25% of the penalty amount with the appropriate authority in terims of the impugned order dated August 22, 2005, in my opinion, the petitioner should be permitted to do so. The requirement of furnishing an additional bank guarantee for 25% of the penalty is dispensed with. As the petitioner compnayis agreeable to pay 25% of the amount of personal penalty imposed on it, the appeals of the two Directors viz; Dr. J J IRANI and Mr. ISHAAT HUSSAIN are directed to be heard without payment of any pre-deposit.
The petitioner seeks a three weeks’ time to deposit such sum with the appropriate authority. In such circumstances, the petitioner is afforded three weeks to deposit the sum of 25% of the penalty amount as directed by the impugned order dated August, 22, 2005 passed by the appellate authority. In default, the appeals will stand dismissed. The authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Upon such deposit being made, the appellate authority is requested to hear and decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible preferably with eight weeks from the date of the deposit. The appellate authority is requested to decide the issue of jurisdiction first before taking up any other issues. All points in the writ petition are kept open including the involvement of the two directors, namely, Dr. J.J. Irani and Mr. Ishaat Hussain.
It is clarified that the appellate authority will hear and dispose of the appeal upon deposit of the 25% of the quantum adjudicated to be payable by the company. W.P. No. 1824 of 2005 is disposed of.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has complied with the order of the High Court of Kolkata. It is submitted as under:
“In complaint with the Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court‟s Order dated 10th March, 2016, and with reference to the mode of making the predeposit stated in the said Departmental Order dated 15th March, 2005.
FPA-FE-408/KOL/2005
Page 2 of 3
We enclose the following Demand Drafts, all drawn on Bank of India, aggregating to Rs. 56,25,000/-(Rupee Fifty Six Lac Twenty Five Thousand only), in favour of “pay & accounts Officer Department of Revenue, New Delhi payable at New Delhi”
Our banks are constrained to issue demand drafts of Rs. 10 lakh or
above, hence payment is made by 6 demand drafts as above.”
been handed over to the counsel for the respondent.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore)
Member
New Delhi, 21st August, 2017 „S‟
FPA-FE-408/KOL/2005
Page 3 of 3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. no. 1824/2005 of Hon‟ble Kolkata High CourtReferred¶10
M/s Tata Korf Engg.
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata
Manmohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
