FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005 of Dr. J.J. Irani v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

ATFP21 Aug 2017FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal noted the merger of the ATFE with the existing Appellate Tribunal. The appellant submitted an affidavit and demand drafts to the respondent demonstrating compliance with a Kolkata High Court order requiring a pre-deposit for hearing appeals. The matter was listed for the respondent to verify compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005 of Dr. J.J. Irani v/s The Joint Director… — Company and Corporate | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

¶3

Dr. J.J. Irani … Appellant

¶4

Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

¶5

… Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant : Shri Shravan Sahny, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Prashant Pandey, L.C. Ms. Aagam Kaur, L.C. CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 21.08.2017

¶9

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

¶10

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 1^st July, 2017.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the order dated 10^th 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:-

¶12

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:

¶18

“In complaint with the Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court‟s Order dated 10^th March, 2016, and with reference to the mode of making the predeposit stated in the said Departmental Order dated 15^th March, 2005.

¶19

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

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”

¶22

Demand Draft No. 035153 dated 29^th March 2016 for the sum of Rs. 9,50,000.

¶23

Demand Draft no. 035154 dated 29^th March, 2016 for the sum of Rs. 9,50,000.

¶24

Demand Draft no. 035155 dated 29^th March, 2016 for the sum of Rs. 9,50,000.

¶25

Demand Draft no. 035156 dated 29^th March, 2016 for the sum of Rs. 9,50,000.

¶26

Demand Draft no. 035157 dated 29^th March, 2016 for the sum of Rs. 9,50,000.

¶27

Demand Draft no. 035158 dated 29^th March, 2016 for the sum of Rs. 8,75,000.

¶28

Our banks are constrained to issue demand drafts of Rs. 10 lakh or

¶29

above, hence payment is made by 6 demand drafts as above.”

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondent seeks some time to confirm

¶31

his client in this regard.

¶32

Copy of the order of the Hon‟ble High Court for its compliance has

¶33

been handed over to the counsel for the respondent.

¶34

List on 2^nd November, 2017 at 2:30 PM.

¶35

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶36

(Anand Kishore)

¶37

Member

¶38

New Delhi, 21^st August, 2017 „S‟

¶39

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005

¶40

Page 3 of 3

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005 of Dr. J.J. Irani v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-FE-410/KOL/2005 of Dr. J.J. Irani v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases