Dismissed

Union of India v. Mr. Atul Lall

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021WA/6409/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged the Single Judge's order quashing a show cause notice issued for violating the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The High Court upheld the quashing because the notice violated Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, which barred proceedings after the two-year cut-off period.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order quashing the show cause notice.

Union of India Vs Mr. Atul Lall — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶9

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.16620 OF 2010 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶14

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

¶15

NO.9/1, STATE BANK ROAD, BEHIND INDIA GARAGE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

¶17

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

¶18

NO.9/1, STATE BANK ROAD,

¶19

¶20

BEHIND INDIA GARAGE, BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI H JAYAKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

MR. ATUL LALL MAJOR, S/O MR. M.B.L. SAXENA R/O FLAT NO.405 NEELGIRI APARTMENT ALAK NANDA, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶25

--THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16620/2010(GM-RES) DATED 25/01/2011.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

In this intra-court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 25th January, 2011 passed in WP No.16620/2010 by the learned Single Judge, by which, a show cause notice dated 5.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director as contemplated under Section 7(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999

¶29

¶30

(hereinafter referred to as `Act') pertaining to the violation of provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has been quashed.

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly are stated that the respondent was one of the directors of M/s.Entel (Pvt.) Limited. A show cause notice dated 5.2.2010 was issued to the respondent, by which, the respondent was asked as to why the proceedings as contemplated under Section 13(1) of the Act for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act should not be initiated against the respondent. The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge inter-alia on the ground that the show cause notice is per se without jurisdiction as the same has been quashed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25th January, 2011.

¶32

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted

¶35

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the non-realisation of the expiry period is a continuing offence and is in the contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that an alternative remedy was available to the respondent and therefore no interference in the matter was called for.

¶36

On the otherhand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶37

We have considered the submissions made by

¶38

both the sides and have perused the records.

¶39

It is well settled in law that this Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction, in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy, when it is shown that the impugned order/show cause notice [see: Whirlpool Corporation -vs- Registrar of Trade Marks reported in

¶40

¶41

(1998) 8 SCC 1 and in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another -vs- Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 ].

¶42

The Act comes into force w.e.f. 1.6.2000.

¶43

Section 49(3) of the Act reads as under:

¶44

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under section 51 of the repealed Act after expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act."

¶45

In the instant case, it is evidence that an adjudicating officer shall not take any notice of any contravention under Section 51 of the repealed Act after expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was initiated against the respondent in respect of an offence under the repealed Act namely, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The notice was issued to the respondent on 5.2.2010. The said show cause notice is therefore, per se without jurisdiction and has been issued

¶46

¶47

in violation of the bar contained in Section 49(3) of the Act. The impugned show cause notice has therefore rightly been held to be without jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. The show cause notice is per se jurisdiction. Therefore, the question of relegating the respondent to alternative remedy does not arise.

¶48

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶49

In the result, appeal stands dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

bkm

Union of India v. Mr. Atul Lall

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Mr. Atul Lall

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

Smt Tasneem Ahmed Vs Arul K

The Divisional Manager Vs R Kalanaika

Sri. Mahesh Vs Sri. T.G. Chandrashekar

H Narayana S/O Late Hanumaiah Vs the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka

Sri.H.Seetharamaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Narayanamma Vs Government of Karnataka