Dismissed

FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001 of Shri Kishore Manilal Shah v/s The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP13 Nov 2018FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant seeking a reduction in the pre-deposit amount from Rs. 10 lakh to a lower figure, holding that the applicant could not re-argue the appeal and no error apparent on the record existed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; appellant allowed one month time to pre-deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-.

FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001 of Shri Kishore Manilal Shah v/s The Special… — Cheque Dishonour | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.11.2018

¶3

MP-FE-314/MUM/2018 (Review) & In FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001 Shri Kishore Manilal Shah … Appellant Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant : Shri Viraj Kadam, Advocate For the respondent : Mrs. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER

¶6

JUDGEMENT

¶7

MP-FE-314/MUM/2018 (Review)

¶8

The present application has been filed by the appellant for reviewing the order dated 31.08.2018 of this Bench. The main plea of the counsel for the appellant is that the income tax returns for the relevant period were on record but inadvertently he was not able to bring it to the notice of the Bench during the hearing. He further stated that these income tax returns for the years 1999 to 2003 would prove that the financial condition of the appellant was bad even then. His limited prayer was that the pre-deposit of amount may be reduced.

¶9

In FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

Responding to the same, learned counsel for the respondent stated that although the Tribunal has the powers to review but what can be reviewed has been laid down by the courts of the country in a number of judgments. She relied on the Supreme Court Judgment of Vikram Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab [Criminal M.P. Nos. 16673-16674 of 2016 & Criminal M.P. Nos. 16675-16676 of 2016 in Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 192193 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008] dated 07.07.2017 and the High Court of Delhi’s judgment in FAO No. 527/2011 dated 15.05.2014 in the case of Sapna vs. Amit Kumar .

¶12

The Supreme Court had in the above judgment stated the following:

¶13

“In view of above, it is clear that scope, ambit and parameters of review jurisdiction are well defined. Normally in a criminal proceeding, review applications cannot be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Further, the power given to this Court under A rticle 137 is wider and in an appropriate case can be exercised to mitigate a manifest injustice. By review application an applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the face of the record leading miscarriage of justice.”

¶14

From the above, it follows that there has to be a glaring omission or patent mistake in the earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. In the present case, there is no such issue and the decision was based on the arguments of the counsel. There is no error on the face of the record or any glaring omission. Whether waiver of pre-deposit is to be granted or not or

¶15

In FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

how much waiver has to be granted is the discretion of the Bench. Considering the entire situation, the bench has already taken a lenient view and instead of the personal penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- levied in the adjudication order (against which the present appeal has been filed), they have been asked to pre-deposit only Rs. 10,00,000/-.

¶18

Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order dated 31.08.2018. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is given a further period of one month time from today to pre-deposit the amount as per the said order.

¶19

(Ananya Ray) Member New Delhi, 13^th November, 2018 ‘A’

¶20

In FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001

¶21

Page 3 of 3

FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001 of Shri Kishore Manilal Shah v/s The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-52/MUM/2001 of Shri Kishore Manilal Shah v/s The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases