The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal for non-compliance. The appellant failed to deposit the enhanced penalty amount or furnish the required security deposit by the deadline, ultimately appearing on behalf of the appellant in the lower forum only to request pending compliance.
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-88/MUM/2017
M/s Jeeve Exim
… Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Robin Majumder, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Agam Kaur, Legal Consultant & Shri Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER
19.07.2017
FPA-FE-88/MUM/2017
On 04th July, 2016, the following order was passed. Again on 29th
August, 2016, the further time was granted to comply the order dated 04th July, 2016.
“Dated : 04.07.2016 Misc Application No. (s) : 11-13/2015 in A.Nos. 88-90/2014 Appellant(s) : M/s Jeeve Exim & Ors.
Shri M.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners/appellants while Ms. Natasha Sarkar is present on behalf of the respondent (Enforcement Directorate). Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants have pleaded their inability to comply the order due to financial constraints and have not been able to deposit 15% of the amount of penalty imposed against each of them or furnish bank guarantee/security deposit of balance 85% in terms of modified order dated 18.01.2016. Last opportunity is afforded so that the learned counsel for the respondent may contact the appellants for seeking final instructions. In view of the request, put up on 29.08.2016 for further orders. It is made clear that in case on the next dater of listing, due in compliance is not made the appeals may be dismissed for non-compliance.”
(Dr. H.K. Mudgil) (Justice Vinay Kumar Mathur) Member Member
FPA-FE-88/MUM/2017
Page 1 of 2
It is the admitted position that the interim order dated 29th April, 2016 was modified by order dated 18th January, 2016. No compliance has been made by the appellant as learned counsel for the respondent submits that it has been verified by the Department that the amount has not been deposited. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for non-compliance of order and nonappearance.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 19th July, 2017
‘A’
FPA-FE-88/MUM/2017
Page 2 of 2
M/s Jeeve Exim
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
