Dismissed

FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010 of Sh Mahiyar B. Byramshaw (L.R.) v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP9 Feb 2018FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed four appeals concerning pending proceedings where appellants failed to comply with deposit orders and pursued proceedings simultaneously in multiple forums, citing non-compliance as the ground for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

All appeals are dismissed for noncompliance with the order dated 28.05.2010.

FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010 of Sh Mahiyar B. Byramshaw (L.R.) v/s The… — Property and Title | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-FE-91/CHN/2010 Ms. Fayshaw Apprels	… Appellant
FPA-FE-92/CHN/2010
Mrs. F.B. Byramshaw (L.R.)	… Appellant
FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010
Sh Mahiyar B. Byramshaw (L.R.)	… Appellant
FPA-FE-94/CHN/2010
Mrs. Uvzanna D. Irani (L.R.)	… Appellant
Versus

¶3

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

¶4

… Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the Appellant : G.Njayabanam, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Legal Consultant Ms. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN MRS. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 09.02.2018

¶8

FPA-FE-91-94/CHN/2010

¶9

By an order dated 28^th May, 2010 passed in Appeal No. 91-94/2010, the Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Madras High Court. Thereafter the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The counsel for the appellant states that after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27^th August, 2010 they have filed an application for review at the Madras High Court which is pending. The same is pending for the last more than seven years and six months. No interim order of any nature has been passed. In the meanwhile, a fresh application dated 5^th January, 2013 has been filed for modification of the order dated 28^th May, 2010 of the Appellate Tribunal whereby the appellant were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-. This application is not maintainable because they have FPA-FE-91-94/CHN/2010 Page 1 of 2

¶10

already filed a review petition in the Madras High Court against the same interim order and they cannot be pursuing their case simultaneously in two separate forum. The appellant has not shown any intention to deposit the amount. The appeals are pending for more than seven years. There is no stay from the Madras High Court on their review petition filed subsequent to the Supreme Court’s order.

¶11

The contention of the appellant about the change of circumstances presently, may be argued before the Madras High Court where they are simultaneously pursuing the review petition.

¶12

We are therefore left with no option to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance of the order dated 28.05.2010.

¶13

All the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶15

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶16

New Delhi, 9^th February, 2018 ‘K’

¶17

FPA-FE-91-94/CHN/2010

¶18

Page 2 of 2

FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010 of Sh Mahiyar B. Byramshaw (L.R.) v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-93/CHN/2010 of Sh Mahiyar B. Byramshaw (L.R.) v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases