Review petition filed to challenge a High Court judgment regarding proceedings under FEMA, arguing violations of natural justice and reliance on Supreme Court precedent. The High Court rejected the grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938
RP.No. 217 of 2016 () IN WA.1960/2015 --------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1960/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-02-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S):
1. K.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, KOTTACKAL HOUSE MELPARAMBU VILLAGE, KALANADU P.O., KALANADU KASARGODU TALUK - 671 317.
2. ABDULLA @ ABDULLA KUNHI
3. ABDUL LATHEEF @ C.B.LATHEEF S/O. ABBAS, GARDEN VILLA, MELPARAMBU P.O. KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA - 671 317.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (FEMA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK B.M.T.C TTMC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027.
5. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR (APPEALS) SOUTH ZONE (FEMA) & COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NO. 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBACKAM, CHENNAI -600 034.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
R.P. No. 217 of 2016 in W.A. No.1960 of 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016
O R D E R
Ashok Bhushan, CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
R.P. No.217/16 2
been referred to were considered and it was also noticed that certain proposition laid down in the judgment of Madras High Court were approved by the Apex Court. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding violation of principles of natural justice was also dealt with. The proposition which has been laid down by the Apex Court that all quasi judicial orders have to be speaking order is well established proposition of law. The appellate order passed by the statutory authority was under challenge. The appellate order which was passed by the Special Director (Appeals) was an order running in 17 paragraphs, where the facts of the case and contentions were noted. It cannot be said that the order was a non-speaking order. Therefore on the said ground also, we are not satisfied that any case for review of judgment arise.
The review petition is dismissed.
Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
sou.23/3. // True copy //
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santhosh Kumar v. State of U.P and others [AIR 1970 SC 1302]Referred¶33
K.M. Mohammed Shafi
Abdulla @ Abdulla Kunhi
Abdul Latheef @ C.B.Latheef
Union of India
Director of Enforcement
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
