Disposed

Bhushan Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jan 2012CWP/24508/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and proposed confiscation of funds under FEMA. While declining merit-based relief due to awaited adjudication, the Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to decide the pending 2003 matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

The respondent (Directorate of Enforcement) is directed to dispose of the pending case within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Bhushan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CWP No. 24508 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: January 2, 2012

Bhushan Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 26.5.2010 (P-3), passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Directorate of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Management Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Government of India.

¶16

According to the aforesaid order a show cause notice dated 13.6.2003 was issued to the petitioner under Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for brevity, 'the Act') and the seized amount of ` 7,00,000/- was proposed to be confiscated to the Central Government account in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The case is still pending adjudication and respondent No. 3 has declined the request of the petitioner to release the amount.

¶17

CWP No. 24508 of 2011

¶18

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and are of the view that no relief on merit could be granted to the petitioner at this stage because there is hierarchy of authorities under the Act and the matter is still under adjudication. However, we feel persuaded to issue direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the matter at the earliest as the same is pending since 2003. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶22

January 2, 2012 PKapoor

¶23

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Bhushan Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gheru Lal Bal Chand Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Nidhi Pipes Ltd. Vs Punjab Financial Corp. and Ors.

M/S Industrial Organics Ltd. Vs State of Pb and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Kansal Hosiery Exports

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State Bank of India