2002 (10) TMI 713 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of summons issued under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and its contravention.
2. Applicability of section 56 of FERA for contravention of directions issued under the Act.
3. Maintainability of a complaint filed under section 56 of FERA.
4. Barred by limitation for filing a petition under section 482 CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment discussed the interpretation of summons issued under section 40 of FERA and its contravention. The Supreme Court's judgment in Enforcement Directorate v. M. Samba Siva Rao clarified that failure to obey such summons constitutes a contravention of the Act and falls within the ambit of section 56 of FERA. Previous judgments by Kerala High Court and Madras High Court were cited, emphasizing the importance of obeying directions under section 40.

Issue 2: The judgment addressed the applicability of section 56 of FERA for contravention of directions issued under the Act. It highlighted that contravention of summons issued under section 40 is considered a violation of the Act and falls under the purview of section 56. The Supreme Court's ruling in M. Samba Siva Rao's case established a clear understanding that disobedience to such directions is punishable under section 56.

Issue 3: The judgment analyzed the maintainability of a complaint filed under section 56 of FERA. It discussed a case where a complaint was filed against a respondent for not obeying summons under section 40. The court examined the legality of initiating proceedings under section 56 based on the respondent's non-compliance with the summons, ultimately setting aside the order of the trial court and emphasizing the need for expediting the trial process.

Issue 4: The judgment also addressed the contention of the petition being barred by limitation under section 482 CrPC. It rejected the argument, stating that there is no prescribed limitation for seeking relief under this section. The court emphasized that the purpose of section 482 CrPC is to prevent abuse of court processes and ensure the ends of justice, regardless of the timing of the petition.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the interpretation of FERA provisions, the applicability of section 56, the maintainability of complaints under FERA, and the limitation for filing petitions under section 482 CrPC. It clarified the legal principles and established a clear understanding of the consequences of non-compliance with summons issued under FERA.