2025 (1) TMI 852 - AT - FEMA

Review applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under FERA - Whether the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit order justifies the dismissal of their appeals? HELD THAT - Order of this Tribunal has directed deposit of 15 percent of the penalty. The interpretation given in the Review Petition cannot be sustained, in view of the unambiguity in the Adjudication Order. We find that the two Review Petitions fail to meet the conditions of the relevant afore cited provisions of the CPC as well as do not fall within the principles which have been culled out in the Judgment relating to Kamal Sengupta 2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT after having failed to obtain favorable orders from the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana and from the Hon ble Supreme Court, then there is no question of filing the reviews of the Order which has been affirmed by these higher Judicial Fora, as has been held in the Judgment relating to Ram Kishor Gupta 2003 (1) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT No merit in the Review Applications filed by the Review Petitioners. We therefore dismiss the Review Petitions filed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily addresses the following legal issues:

Whether the review applications filed by the appellants for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under FERA are maintainable.
Whether the appellants can seek review based on their acquittal in criminal proceedings under FERA and the absence of a prosecution complaint against one appellant.
Whether the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit order justifies the dismissal of their appeals.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Review Applications

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The review applications are assessed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which allows for review based on discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the record.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal noted that the review applications must satisfy the conditions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The appellants failed to present new evidence or demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record.
Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal found that the facts regarding the absence of prosecution and acquittal were known before the order dated 23.07.2015 and did not constitute new evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the principles from the judgments of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that review is not permissible when higher judicial forums have affirmed the original order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that the absence of prosecution and acquittal should relieve them from pre-deposit requirements. The respondent countered that these facts were already considered in prior proceedings.
Conclusions: The tribunal concluded that the review applications were not maintainable as the conditions for review were not met.

Issue 2: Impact of Acquittal and Absence of Prosecution on Pre-deposit Requirement

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The tribunal referenced the distinction between adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution, as outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment in Radheyshyam Kejriwal.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal emphasized that adjudication and criminal proceedings are independent, with different standards of proof. Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically impact adjudication outcomes.
Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal noted that the appellants were aware of their acquittal and the absence of prosecution before the adjudication order, negating claims of new evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the principle that adjudication proceedings require proof based on preponderance of probability, unlike the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' argument that pre-deposit would cause hardship was dismissed as the tribunal maintained that the adjudication process was separate from criminal proceedings.
Conclusions: The tribunal held that the acquittal and absence of prosecution did not justify waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Appeals Due to Non-compliance with Deposit Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The tribunal referenced the statutory requirement under the second proviso to Section 52(2) of FERA, which mandates pre-deposit for appeal consideration.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal emphasized that compliance with the deposit order was a statutory requirement, and non-compliance justified dismissal of the appeals.
Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal noted that the appellants failed to deposit the required 15% of the penalty, despite an extension granted by the High Court.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the statutory requirement, concluding that the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit order warranted dismissal of their appeals.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' plea for hardship was rejected, as the tribunal found no legal basis to waive the statutory requirement.
Conclusions: The tribunal dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the deposit order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

"The provisions of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC allow for review of the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal only if the conditions mentioned in the said provisions of the CPC are satisfied."
"Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution are independent in nature to each other."

Core Principles Established:

Review applications must meet specific conditions under CPC to be maintainable.
Adjudication and criminal proceedings are independent, with different standards of proof.
Compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements is mandatory for appeal consideration.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The review applications were dismissed as they did not satisfy the conditions for review under CPC.
The acquittal and absence of prosecution did not impact the requirement for pre-deposit in adjudication proceedings.
The appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order.

← Previous