2021 (10) TMI 1131 - SC - FEMA

Pre-deposit requirement qua the petitioner - As petitioner submit that he in no way concerned with the affairs of the company after his resignation on 6-5-2006 much less with the agreement dated 21-6-2006. Further, even the earlier agreement was between the two companies to which the petitioner was not a signatory - HELD THAT - As in our opinion, for the stand taken by the petitioner, we direct the Appellate Authority to exempt the requirement of pre-deposit as regards this petitioner (M. Umesh), in case he resorts to remedy of appeal in light of the liberty given in terms of this order. In other words, the Appellate Authority shall not insist for pre-deposit requirement qua the petitioner herein, i.e. M. Umesh. Besides, the appellate authority shall not non-suit the petitioner for having filed the appeal beyond limitation as the petitioner was pursuing remedy before the High Court in the first place and thereafter before this Court, after issuance of show cause notice.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging High Court judgment regarding statutory remedy
2. Exemption from pre-deposit requirement for petitioner in FEMA violations case
3. Appeal filing deadline and limitation period
4. Discharge of Advocate-on-Record and representation by Official Liquidator
5. Agreement with High Court view on pursuing statutory appeal

1. Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging High Court judgment regarding statutory remedy:
The Supreme Court addressed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a High Court judgment that the petitioner must avail of the statutory remedy, as the competent authority had issued a final order. The Court agreed with the High Court's view, emphasizing the necessity for the petitioner to follow the statutory appeal process.

2. Exemption from pre-deposit requirement for petitioner in FEMA violations case:
The petitioner, represented by a Senior Counsel, argued that they had no involvement in the company's affairs after resigning and should not be compelled to pay a pre-deposit amount for FEMA violations. After considering both sides' arguments, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to exempt the petitioner from the pre-deposit requirement if they choose to appeal, ensuring the petitioner would not be non-suited for filing the appeal beyond the limitation period.

3. Appeal filing deadline and limitation period:
The Court instructed the petitioner to file the appeal within three weeks, with a warning that failure to do so would result in the withdrawal of the limited relief granted regarding the limitation period. The Appellate Authority was directed not to non-suit the petitioner for exceeding the limitation period due to pursuing remedies before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

4. Discharge of Advocate-on-Record and representation by Official Liquidator:
In another matter, the Court allowed the discharge of the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and accepted the representation by the Official Liquidator. The Court directed necessary amendments to the petition and scheduled the matter for a hearing after two weeks based on the Official Liquidator's request.

5. Agreement with High Court view on pursuing statutory appeal:
Regarding a separate SLP, the Court concurred with the High Court's opinion that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process in light of the final order issued by the competent authority. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within three weeks, emphasizing that the Appellate Authority should not non-suit the petitioner based on the limitation period if the appeal is filed in time.

Overall, the Supreme Court's judgments focused on upholding the necessity of following statutory remedies, providing exemptions in specific circumstances, and ensuring fair treatment regarding appeal deadlines and limitation periods.