Dismissed

Sebastian Chokkattu v. the Appellate Tribunal for Safema

Kerala HC11 Dec 2019MFA/163/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order directing deposit of penalty, arguing violation of a 2009 High Court order. The Court held the remedy for non-compliance is a contempt petition, not a writ challenge, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; the court reserved the appellant's right to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent court.

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs the Appellate… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶9

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, NDPS & PBPT Act, New Delhi in FPA-FE-604/CHN/2003

¶11

APPELLANT/S:

¶12

SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU AGED 62 YEARS 1A, SUMMER CASTLE APARTMENTS, DESOM P. O., ALUVA - 683 103.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA FEMA, PMLA, NDPS AND PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI - 110 001- REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶16

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS, C BLOCK, MURUGESA NAICKER OFFICE COMPLEX, NO.600 006, 84, GREAMS ROAD, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600006.

¶17

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

Dias,J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2019 passed by the 1^st respondentThe Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act (in short - “Appellate Tribunal”) directing the appellant to deposit the penalty amount to the tune of 20% of the total amount i.e Rs.22 lakh within three months. It was further directed that only on deposit of the amount, the appeal would be heard on merits and the impugned order will be stayed.

¶23

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per Annexure-A3 judgment passed by this Court on 29.9.2009 in W.P(C)Nos.22304, 25536 and 27244 of 2009,

¶24

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

this Court specifically directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the appeals in all the three cases, as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The Appellate Tribunal was further directed to keep in abeyance further steps for realising the amount covered under penalty orders till the final disposal of the appeals.

¶27

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it in total defiance to Annexure-A3 judgment passed by this Court, the Appellate Tribunal has now passed Annexure-A4 order.

¶28

4. It is trite law that there cannot be

¶29

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

repeated directions issued by this Court on the same cause of action.

¶32

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶33

Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v C.Muddaiah [(2007) 7 SCC 689] held that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by

¶34

not complying with the direction on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. If such an

¶35

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶36

¶37

argument is upheld, it would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of

¶38

justice. A similar view is taken in State of Haryana and others v. M.P.Mohla [(2007) 1 SCC 457] .

¶39

6. Annexure-A3 judgment, from the

¶40

records produced in this appeal, has attained finality and is binding on all parties to the 'lis'. The direction contained in Annexure-A3 judgment is unambiguous and explicit. If the grievance

¶41

of the appellant is that the Appellate Tribunal has passed Ext.P4 order in violation of Ext.P3 judgment, then the appellant's remedy is to move this Court for contempt of court, against the 1^st

¶42

respondent in a contempt of court case

¶43

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶44

¶45

under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and

¶46

not by filing a writ petition challenging Annexure-A4 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶47

With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of, reserving the right of the appellant to seek appropriate reliefs

¶48

before the competent court(s), in accordance with law.

¶49

ma/12/12/2019

¶50

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶51

/True copy/

¶52

P.S to Judge

¶53

MFA.No.163 OF 2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SDE (SSB) IV/36-40/2003 DATED 30.9.2003. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM 604/2003 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2003. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WRIT PETITION NO.25536/2009 DATED 29.9.2009. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.604/2003 DATED 31.7.2019.

Sebastian Chokkattu v. the Appellate Tribunal for Safema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastian Chokkattu v. the Appellate Tribunal for Safema

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

Shibi Vs Aswathy

C.H.Ibrahim Vs M.K.Jisna

M.a.Ajeeb, Vs N.a.Khader Pillai

P.Anilkumar Vs Ajitha

Rajeesh Mon.M Vs State of Kerala

Jayan Vs Subadra