9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the alleged acts and omissions alleged to have been committed in the year 1980. Factual Backdrop : 2. The petitioner was a non-executive Director of a company known as M/s. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. ("the said company" for short). The said Company was reconstituted, with the result, petitioner ceased to be an associate of the said Company after 1996. 3. The factual matrix reveal that in or about 1980-81, the Ministry of Defense in Oman had issued a tender for carrying out work of residential and office building known as Saiq Package, at Muscat, Oman. Due to certain financial and other difficulties, the contract awarded to the Company of which petitioner wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of January, 2004 were issued. 5. The petitioner is contending that reopening of the matter at the present stage after more than 22 years would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Department has failed and neglected to explain as to why they took 13 years from the date of alleged issuance of the said memorandum to commence adjudication proceedings. In the interregnum, not a single notice was issued to the petitioner, the proceedings according to the petitioner are, thus, barred by the latches. 6. The reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwandas Tolani v. B.C. Aggarwal - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Camb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication proceedings, no objection can be taken to the action of the respondents notwithstanding revival of the proceedings after a lapse of 12 years. He also pressed into service the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) in support of his submission and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Consideration : 9. Having heard rival parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1, by the impugned action is seeking to adjudicate upon the matters which took place in the year 1980-82 and for the first time, the notices were issued after lapse of more than 12 years. 10. It is no doubt true that no period of limitation in the Statute to complete t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication process. The absence of relevant record due to lapse of more than 12 years is also a factual aspect which needs to be taken into account. In our view, the respondents cannot be allowed to re-open the proceedings at such a belated stage. If allowed, it would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. The Department is not entitled to re-open old matters in this manner. As rightly observed in the earlier Judgment of this Court, if the Department's contention as to limitation were to be accepted, it would be mean that the department can commence adjudication proceedings 20 years, 25 years or 30 years after the original show cause notice which cannot be permitted. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
