Partly allowed

FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 of Shri Ravi Mittal v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP6 Aug 2019FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed restoration of appeals filed against 2008 orders, finding the appeals lacked grounds and the High Court had not remanded them. The Tribunal released two remanded appeals from part-heard status for fresh hearing on approaching October 2020.

What did the court decide?

ROA applications in appeal No. 473 and 488 of 2003 were dismissed; appeals 475 and 543 of 2004 were released from part-heard status and listed for fresh hearing on 25 October 2020.

FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 of Shri Ravi Mittal v/s The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

DATE OF DECISION: 06 .08.2019

¶3

1. MP-FE-315/DLI/2018 (Misc.) FPA-FE-488/DLI/2003

¶4

Shree Acids & Chemicals Ltd.

¶5

… Appellant

¶6

2. MP-FE-316/DLI/2018 (Misc.) FPA-FE-473/DLI/2003 Shri Sandeep Mittal … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶11

For the Appellants : Ms. Priyanka Solanki, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Kaushlesh Pandey, Legal Consultant

¶12

3. FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 Shri Ravi Mittal … Appellant 4. FPA-FE-543/DLI/2004 Shree Acids & Chemicals Ltd. … Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent

¶15

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶16

For the Appellants : Shri Atanu Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Kaushlesh Pandey, Legal Consultant CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER JUDGMENT FPA-FE-488 & 473/DLI/2003 Page 1 of 4 FPA-FE-475 & 543/DLI/2004

¶17

FPA-FE-488 & 473/DLI/2003 & FPA-FE-475 & 543/DLI/2004

¶18

Four appeals were filed as above against the adjudication order No. SDE/SKP/III/124/2003 dated 10.09.2003 in the erstwhile Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE). The said appeals were dismissed, inter alia , by the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.07.2008 on grounds of limitation as well as non compliance of the earlier pre-deposit order dated 16.03.2004. The appellants filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court vide CRL. APPEAL No. 1058 of 2008. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.12.2014 passed the following order:

¶19

“………and remands appeal Nos. 475 of 2004 and 543 of 2004 (by Ravi Mittal and SACL fertilizers Division respectively) to the AT for a decision afresh on the question of the consequences of failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 19 FEMA as well as on the merits of each of the said two appeals.”

¶20

No such order was passed with regard to the other two appeals i.e. 488 of 2003 and 473 of 2003. Hence, it is apparent that the AT’s order dated 28.07.2008 had become final in respect of these two appeals. The appellant in these two appeals filed two restoration of appeals (ROA) applications respectively on 05^th January, 2015 and 23^rd February, 2016. From time to time, the Tribunal has been listing these ROAs for hearing. The ATFE had vide its order dated 19.01.2016 for the first time listed these ROAs for hearing. However, these ROAs could not be finally heard and orders passed on them for some reason or the other.

¶21

A hearing was granted by this Bench to, inter alia, hear the ROA applications in appeal Nos. 473 and 488 of 2003 respectively. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strongly pitched for the argument that

¶22

FPA-FE-488 & 473/DLI/2003 FPA-FE-475 & 543/DLI/2004

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

there was no need for ROA and that the matter needs to be heard afresh both on pre-deposit and on merits as per the Delhi High Court order dated 08.12.2014 (as mentioned at para 1 supra ). The submission of the appellant in the ROA application was also the same and they have given no reasons as to why the appeals should be restored in as much as the earlier Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 28.07.2008 is a very detailed and a speaking order which had dismissed their appeal. Having filed a ROA application without providing any reason or grounds to restore the appeals and insisting during the hearing that there was no need for ROA after having filed the same, is taking things for granted and also shows the attitude of the appellant towards legal procedures and requirements.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the ROA application on the ground that the Delhi High Court’s order has not remanded these two appeals as is clear from the reading of the concluding para of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 08.12.2014 and the ROA does not provide any ground for such restoration after having been dismissed by the ATFE vide a detailed order dated 28.07.2008.

¶26

I have examined the ROA applications as well as the submission of the parties during the hearing. That Delhi High Court’s order as quoted at para 1 supra , clearly mentions only two appeals i.e. 475 and 543 of 2004 of having being remanded to the AT. There is no such order with regard to the other two appeals i.e. 473 and 488 of 2003 and hence it was legally required for the appellants to have filed, if they so desired, a proper restoration of appeal applications with valid grounds and reasons. As discussed above, they have failed to do so either in their applications or during the hearing.

¶27

FPA-FE-488 & 473/DLI/2003 FPA-FE-475 & 543/DLI/2004

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

5. In the light of above, the restoration of appeals applications in

¶30

appeal No. 473 & 488 of 2003 is dismissed as rejected as is without any grounds and substance.

¶31

With regard to the other two appeals i.e. 475 & 543 of 2004 which has been remanded by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the final hearing was commenced on 11.04.2019, adjourned and treated as part heard to 11.07.2019 at the request of one of the appellants and again adjourned and treated as part heard to 26.07.2019 at the request of the other appellant. However, again on 26.07.2019, there was a request for adjournment by one of the appellants.

¶32

7. Accordingly, the appeals FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 & FPA-FE543/DLI/2004 were released from part heard and is now listed to be heard afresh on 25^th October, 2019.

¶33

Copy of this order be placed in each of the four appeals by the Registry.

¶34

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶35

New Delhi, 6^th August, 2019

¶36

‘A’

¶37

FPA-FE-488 & 473/DLI/2003 FPA-FE-475 & 543/DLI/2004

¶38

Page 4 of 4

FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 of Shri Ravi Mittal v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-FE-475/DLI/2004 of Shri Ravi Mittal v/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

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