Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + HC FEMA - 2009 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 504 - HC - FEMADirection to petitioner as a legal representative to deposit ₹ 1,00,000,00 from the estate of the deceased, i.e., Mr. Bharat Thacker Held that - The petitioner being a legal representative will be liable to the extent that she has inherited the estate from late Mr. Bharat Thacker. The estate of late Mr. Bharat Thacker is liable and can be attached and forfeited under provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on account of the adjudication order passed against Mr. Bharat Thacker. This is, therefore, necessary to enquire about the total estate left behind by late Mr. Bharat Thacker. No such enquiry was made and gone into. The petitioner herein has also not filed any affidavit stating and giving details of the estate left behind by late Mr. Bharat Thacker, what has happened to the said estate and who has inherited the same. In case late Mr. Bharat Thacker has left behind any estate, learned Appellate Tribunal is competent to pass an appropriate order to protect interest of the respondent department, even if the same is in possession/control of a third party, other than the petitioner herein. The petitioner cannot obviously object or protest against any such order, for she is not adversely affected and has not inherited the estate. Inheritance is subject to the first charge of the respondent. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 8-2-2007, to the extent it relates to appeal No. 37/2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication on the application for waiver of pre-deposit
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on late individuals. 2. Appeal filed by the legal representative of the deceased individuals. 3. Inheritance of estate and liability of legal representatives. 4. Compliance with penalty deposit orders. 5. Fresh adjudication on waiver of pre-deposit application. 6. Contention regarding the validity of the adjudication order. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on late individuals, late Mr. Hansraj Thacker and late Mr. Bharat Thacker. The penalties were imposed through an adjudication order dated 30-8-1998. 2. Late Mr. Bharat Thacker, as the legal representative of late Mr. Hansraj Thacker, filed two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal of Foreign Exchange. However, during the pendency of the appeals, both late Mr. Hansraj Thacker and late Mr. Bharat Thacker passed away. 3. The petitioner, who is the wife of late Mr. Bharat Thacker, filed applications to be brought on record as a legal representative in the two appeals. The Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from the estate of late Mr. Bharat Thacker. 4. The petitioner argued that she did not inherit any movable or immovable property from her deceased husband, late Mr. Bharat Thacker. The Appellate Tribunal's order did not address this issue, leading to a challenge by the petitioner on the grounds of impossibility to comply with the deposit order. 5. The judgment sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter for fresh adjudication on the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The petitioner is required to file an affidavit stating the estate left behind by late Mr. Bharat Thacker and whether she has inherited any properties from the estate within four weeks. 6. Additionally, the petitioner raised contentions regarding the merits of the adjudication order itself, questioning the validity of the penalties imposed. However, the court refrained from examining these contentions as they were pending before the Appellate Tribunal. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of penalties imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, legal representation in appeals, inheritance of estate, compliance with deposit orders, and the need for fresh adjudication. It emphasizes the importance of clarifying the inheritance status and estate details before imposing deposit requirements on legal representatives.
|