9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 52(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Procedural irregularities in filing the revision petition; Authority to file the revision petition in the name of Union of India; Delay in filing the revision petition; Service of notice on respondents.
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi pertains to a revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against five respondents challenging an Adjudication Order exonerating the respondents from contravention of certain sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Enforcement Directorate invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 52(4) of the Act to examine the legality of the Adjudication Order. The revision petition was filed after a significant delay of almost one year without any explanation for the delay, and certain discrepancies were noted in the filing. The respondents neither appeared nor were represented throughout the proceedings despite repeated notices and adjournments. The Tribunal highlighted the procedural irregularities in the filing of the revision petition. It was observed that the petition lacked signatures and was filed under the name of an individual who was not authorized to represent the Union of India or the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proper authorization and delegation of power for filing such petitions on behalf of the government. Reference was made to constitutional provisions regarding the authority to sue or be sued in the name of the Union of India, emphasizing the need for adherence to established rules and procedures. The lack of delegation of authority to the individual filing the petition was considered a serious procedural flaw. Another significant issue addressed in the judgment was the delay in filing the revision petition and the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to provide a valid reason for the delay. Despite multiple adjournments, no satisfactory explanation was presented for the delay exceeding 11 months. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the incorrect address provided for the respondents, who had reportedly moved from the stated address several years prior to the filing of the petition. This further highlighted the lack of diligence on the part of the Enforcement Directorate in pursuing the matter effectively. In light of the procedural irregularities, lack of proper authorization, significant delay, and failure to serve notice on the respondents effectively, the Tribunal concluded that the revision petition was not maintainable and ordered its dismissal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the necessity of valid authorization when filing petitions on behalf of governmental bodies. The judgment underscored the need for diligence and compliance with legal formalities in such matters to ensure the integrity and validity of legal proceedings.
|
