The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, holding that an alternative appeal under Section 54 barred writ jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to file the appeal.
Application dismissed; liberty granted to file appeal under Section 54 of the Act.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
M/s.Rajnarayan Hosiery Exports (P) Ltd., Rajanarayan Towers, 70, Race Course Road, Coimbatore, rep. by its Managing Director Kasi V. Thiagarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, 4th Floor, B Wing, Janpath Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 06.01.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.277 of 2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in connection with the above appeal.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent Appellate Tribunal dated 06.01.2004 made in Appeal No.277 of 2003 passed under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Act').
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar rpp To
Foreign Exchange, 4th Floor, B Wing, Janpath Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
+2cc to Mr.Parivallal, Advocate SR.81680
W.P.No. 36371 of 2004
RV(CO) CB(11/11/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the decision of the Appellate Board when an alternative remedy of further appeal is provided under Section 54 of
How the High Court should treat the question of limitation for filing a further appeal under Section 54 of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.Referred¶10
Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. [(2010) 4 SCC 772] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. Rajnarayan Hosiery Exports (P) Ltd.
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
