Dismissed

Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Its Managing Director, Shaikh Muktar @ Xec Mucta and 3 Ors., v. Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2019WP/792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Enforcement Directorate. Upholding the alternate remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the court distinguished the cited precedent and dismissed the petition on preliminary grounds of maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refrain from taking any coercive steps to execute the impugned order for a period of four weeks.

Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Its Managing… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 WP792-18 dt. 18-02-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 792 OF 2018

¶4

Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Shaikh Muktar@ Xec Mucta & Ors. …Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Special Director of Enforcement,
Enforcement Directorate,
Mumbai & Anr.

¶7

…
Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate with Ms. Princy Ponnan,
Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Vaze & Mr. L. Fernandes, Advocates for the Respondents.

¶10

Coram : M. S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶11

Date : 18^th February, 2019

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard Mr. S. Shetty, learned Senior Advocate with Ms.
Princy Ponnan, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. N. Vaze,
learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶14

 WP792-18 dt. 18-02-2019

¶15

2. At the outset, a preliminary objection is raised to the
maintainability of this petition on the ground that the Petitioners have
an alternate and efficacious remedy against the impugned order dated
17th May, 2018 made by the Enforcement Directorate, to the
Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Company Affairs, Government of India.

¶16

3. Mr. Shetty, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners
concedes that there is an alternate remedy available against the
impugned order dated 17th May, 2018. However, he submits that in
the present case, the impugned order is based upon certain statements
made by some buyers and these statements have been acted upon
without afford of any opportunity or cross examination to the
Petitioners. He submits that this is clear case of violation of principles
of natural justice and fair play not to mention the violation of
statutory rules in force. He submits that where there is violation of
principles of natural justice and fair play, an alternate remedy can
never be held as a bar.

¶17

4. Mr. S. Shetty relies upon a decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Lalit Kumar Modi Vs Special Director & Another

¶18

3 WP792-18 dt. 18-02-2019

¶19

( Writ Petition No.2803 of 2015 decided on 30th January, 2018 ). He
points out that in the said case as well, opportunity of cross
examination was denied to the Petitioner before the impugned order
was made. He points out that the Division Bench of this Court, in
such circumstances, entertained the petition and interfered with the
impugned order. The directions were given to afford opportunity of
cross examination.

¶20

5. In the present case, after the show cause notice dated 6th
September, 2017 was served upon the Petitioners, the Petitioners
chose to file reply through their Chartered Accountant. Neither in the
reply nor at any stage of the proceedings before the impugned order
came to be made, the Petitioners objected to taking into consideration
the statements of the buyers on the ground that the same were not
tested in the cross examination. There was no request made for
examination of such buyers in the presence of the Petitioners or their
legal representatives and thereafter for opportunity to cross
examination of such buyers. The position in the case of Lalit Kumar
Modi ( supra ) was quite different. In the said case, repeated requests
were made in the cross examination but, the same were turned down.
This is the distinguishing feature in the present case or rather this is

¶21

4 WP792-18 dt. 18-02-2019

¶22

the distinguishing feature in the case of Lalit Kumar Modi ( supra ).

¶23

6. In any case, all the contentions including the contention
with regard to the alleged breach of principles of natural justice can
always be raised before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we
uphold the preliminary objection raised and dismiss the present
petition. However, we leave it open to the Petitioners to avail
alternate remedy available under the statute.

¶24

7. Accordingly, we make it clear that none of the
observations in this order should be used to foreclose any contentions
which any of the parties may have, in case the Petitioners, choose to
avail of an alternate remedy available under the statute.

¶25

8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty as
aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

9. At this stage, Mr. S. Shetty, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Petitioners prays that the Respondents be restrained
from taking any coercive steps for at least four weeks within which the
Petitioners will institute the appeal. Mr. Vaze, learned counsel for the

¶27

Respondents states that the objections with regard to the limitation for
filing of appeal may be kept open.

¶28

10. Keeping all objections open, we direct the Respondents to
refrain from taking any coercive steps to execute the impugned order
for a period of four weeks from today. We make it clear that such
order is not made on the basis of merits but only with a view to afford
some reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners to institute an appeal
and seek for interim order therein. Accordingly, if any application for
interim order is made before the Appellate Authority, the same will be
considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M. S. Sonak, J.

¶30

_at_*

Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Its Managing Director, Shaikh Muktar @ Xec Mucta and 3 Ors., v. Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Its Managing Director, Shaikh Muktar @ Xec Mucta and 3 Ors., v. Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. C. M. Abdul Khadar Vs State of Goa Represented by Chief Secretary and Anr.

State of Goa through Chief Secretary and Anr., Vs C. M. Abdul Khader

Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIRCLE-1, Margao and 2 Ors.

Diniz Selwyn D'Souza., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

William Rosario Fernandes and 4 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 12 Ors.

The Seafood Exporters Association of India (Goa Region) Thr. Its Secretary, M. v. Swamy and 10 Ors. Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.