Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + HC FEMA - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 759 - HC - FEMADefault to file a private paper book - Held that - The delay has been continuing over last eight years. Even after this Court had permitted the applicant/appellant to file a private paper book, still the default has continued. It is not known why the applicant/appellant has not been able to trace the record. The explanation therefore, does not inspire much confidence. The Director of Enforcement cannot go on giving instructions to seek time or to set aside a conditional order. This mechanical exercise demonstrates the casualness on the part of all concerned in the Directorate of Enforcement. We think eight years delay is a long enough period for directing investigation. Yet, for the fault of the Director of Enforcement and his team, we do not wish to adversely affect the larger public interest. In the circumstances, we pass the following order - (a)On the applicant paying to the respondents costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- in each of these appeals and which should be paid within two weeks from today, we grant them time till 17th December, 2015 to file complete paper books in all appeals. (b)If such compliance is made and receipt of payment of costs is shown, the Registry to allow the appellant/applicant to prosecute each of these appeals on merits and in accordance with law. (c)No extension of time will be granted for payment of costs or complying with the orders of this Court. (d)Hereafter, no civil application will be entertained.
Issues:
Challenge to conditional order of Registrar dismissing appeals under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 due to defaults in supplying documents for paper book preparation. Analysis: The judgment involves a challenge to a conditional order of the Registrar dismissing appeals under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 due to defaults in supplying documents for paper book preparation. The appeals were filed by the Union of India through the Director of Enforcement, Mumbai, against an order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 30th May, 2003. The appeals were admitted but faced office objections as the appellant failed to provide necessary documents for preparing a paper book as required by procedural rules. The appellant argued that due to the matter's age and administrative lapses, it was challenging to trace and prepare the documents, emphasizing that dismissing the appeals without adjudication on merit would not serve the public interest. On the other hand, the respondents contended that sufficient leniency had been shown and that being a government entity did not entitle the appellant to delay proceedings or commit procedural defaults. They argued that the defaults were deliberate and restoration of the appeals should not be allowed. The court noted the continuing delay of over eight years despite opportunities given to the appellant to rectify the defaults. The court expressed surprise at the lack of action by the Director of Enforcement in addressing the delays and emphasized the need for disciplinary action within the enforcement department. Despite the lapses, the court balanced the interests involved and granted the appellant another chance to comply by paying costs and filing complete paper books within a specified time frame. In the final order, the court directed the appellant to pay costs, file complete paper books, and allowed prosecution of the appeals on merits if the conditions were met. The court also imposed strict timelines for compliance and stated that no further extensions would be granted. Additionally, the court decided not to entertain any civil applications in the future, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders and procedural rules.
|