Partly allowed

T.Gafoor v. Directorate of Enforcement

Kerala HC9 Apr 2013MFA (FERA)/19/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal, setting aside an ex parte order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on the condition that the appellant pays Rs.50,000 as costs to the Mediation Centre.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration, conditional upon payment of Rs.50,000 costs to the State Mediation Centre.

T.Gafoor Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/19TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

MFA.No. 19 of 2010 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RP.680/2005 of APPELETTE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI DATED 28.11.2007

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

T.GAFOOR, VELLAKATTA POST, KARAKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.V.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, NO.26, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶12

BY SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE, CGC OF INDIA

¶13

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

stk

¶15

MFA.No. 19 of 2010

¶16

APPENDIX:

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-10-2004 PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY.

¶19

ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2007 PASED BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

stk

S.SIRI JAGAN &

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶25

M.F.A.(FERA) No. 19 of 2010

¶26

Dated this, the 9^th day of April,2013

JUDGMENT

Siri Jagan, J.

The appellant is the respondent in Revision Petition No.680 of 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. He was caught in possession of cash worth Rs,19,00,000/in Indian Rupees. Proceedings were initiated under the Foreign Exchange Management Act for confiscation and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority under the Act, adjudicated

¶31

the issue and imposed on the appellant, a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was directed to be adjusted from the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- seized from the appellant and to release the balance to him. The respondent herein filed Revision Petition No.680 of 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed and that part of the impugned order relating to the release of the balance from seized amount of Rs.19,00,000/after adjusting the penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- was directed to be

¶32

M.F.A.(FERA) No. 19 of 2010

¶33

¶34

confiscated to the Central Government Account under section 13 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. That order of the Appellate Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.

¶35

The appellant contests the matter on merits also. But, in the course of arguments, he would also contend that the Revision Petition itself is not maintainable insofar as the Foreign Exchange Management Act does not contain any provision for filing of a Revision Petition before the Tribunal, but provides only for filing of an appeal. Another contention raised is that the impugned order is an ex parte order, since the appellant was not served with a notice in the Revision Petition. But the notice was served by affixure under Rule 14 (c) of the Adjudicating Proceedings and Appeal Rules 2000. The counsel for the appellant makes a fervent plea that the appellant may be given another opportunity to contest the matter before the Tribunal on merits.

¶36

None appears before us to contest the matter on behalf of the respondent.

¶37

We have heard the counsel for the appellant.

¶38

M.F.A.(FERA) No. 19 of 2010

¶39

¶40

The counsel for the appellant offers to pay Rs.50,000/-

¶41

as costs as a condition for setting aside the impugned order and

¶42

remanding the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of the appeal after hearing the appellant also. Insofar as the notice was served only by affixure, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to give the appellant an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, on condition that the appellant pays the costs as undertaken. But since none appears to argue the case on behalf of the respondent we are inclined to direct payment of costs to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶43

Accordingly, on condition that the appellant pays Rs.50,000/- as costs to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre and produces proof of payment within one month, we set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi and remand the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant also. If the amount of costs is paid as directed above, the appellant shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.06.2013 for further proceedings before the

¶44

M.F.A.(FERA) No. 19 of 2010

¶45

¶46

Tribunal. If the appellant does not pay the costs as directed

¶47

above, the appeal would stand dismissed.

¶48

This appeal is disposed of as above.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶51

sd/-

¶52

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JUDGE

¶53

//TRUECOPY//

¶54

PA TO JUDGE

¶55

stk

T.Gafoor v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Gafoor v. Directorate of Enforcement

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

State of Kerala Vs K.Unni

State of Kerala Vs Rajan.P.M.

The Regional Director,Esi Corporation Vs Antony Jensu T.J.

State of Kerala and Another Vs M.v.Parameswaran

Prakashan Vs the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division

V.P.Mohammed Vs K.Mujeeb