Allowed

M/S. Hathibhai Bulakidas v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2012FERA/89/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. After the appellant deposited the directed amount, the appeal was restored. The proceedings were transferred to the former Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the impugned order; restoring the appeal; transferring proceedings to the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange.

M/S. Hathibhai Bulakidas Vs Union of India and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

fera89-09

¶2

agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FERA APPEAL NO.89 OF 2009

¶6

M/s.Hathibhai Bulakidas, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Others ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr.G.A. Tambe for the appellant. Mr.A.S. Rao for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.D. Dhanuka, JJ. DATE : 13^th September 2012

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This appeal was admitted on 18^th January 2001. The question of law raised in this appeal is whether the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant – assessee for non-compliance of the pre-deposit order.

¶11

Admittedly, the appellant had not deposited the amount ordered to be deposited by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. However, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- being the amount directed to be

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

fera89-09

¶14

deposited. Since the pre-deposit order is complied with, though belatedly, in our opinion the interest of justice would be met if the order is set aside and the matter is heard on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Board dated 30^th November 1999 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file. Since the Board constituted under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is dissolved and replaced by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, we direct that the appeal proceedings be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal so that the appeal is heard on merits.

¶15

The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶16

The Registry is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.90,000/deposited by the appellant along with the interest accrued thereon to the D.D.O., Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai – 400 021 having office at Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office, 23-24, Mittal Chambers, 2^nd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.

¶17

2 of 2

M/S. Hathibhai Bulakidas v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hathibhai Bulakidas v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Similar cases

e commissioner of central excise and customs-nasik Vs m/s crompton greaves Ltd. -nasik

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. Vs M/S. R.B. Bahutule.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Mohamed Rasheed Vs the Union of India through the Joint Secretary

Select Impex Limited Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Ajitkumar M. Shah Vs the Appellate for Foreign Exchange