9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted deposit in NRI account from a person other than the NRI himself. Thus the Show-Cause Notice and the consequent adjudication proceedings were not tenable and the liability of the bank to insist upon that only NRI should appear in person to make the deposits was not clear. This liability was clarified to the bank only in 1995 i.e. after impugned transaction. Appeal allowed.The order dated 14-5-2010 of the Tribunal is set aside - CRL. A. NO. 761 OF 2010 AND CRL. M.A. NO. 8287 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2010 - SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. Sumit Bansal, Ateer Mathur and Manish Paliwal for the Appellant. Ms. Sugandha for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant bank against order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention." 4. After the notice, adjudicating officer conducted adjudication proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellant bank. In appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. The appellant is assailing the order of the appellate authority on the ground that it did not take into consideration the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be made in the NRE accounts of NRI account holders in the absence of the account holders themselves. For the first time it was expressly provided by the Reserve Bank of India that the deposits were to be made by NRIs in person. This Court, therefore, disposed of the Writ Petition on 19-4-2007, and Review Petition was dismissed on 16-1-2009. Against the order of Single Bench of this Court dated 19-4-2009, an LPA was preferred, being Union of India v. Citi Bank [L.P.A No. 117 of 2009], before the Division Bench. The Division Bench considered the Show-Cause Notice and the Circular/instructions issued by the Union of India in 1995 in respect of deposits of Foreign Exchange in NRIs accounts and also considered the provisions of Exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly set out the provisions of the circular as well as the amended and unamended provisions of paragraph 13B.22 and then came to conclusion that it did. It is obvious that the said Division Bench did not regard the circular or the amendment as being merely clarificatory. We, therefore, feel that the issue stands entirely covered by the said Division Bench decision. With regard to the submission of alternative remedy, we feel that these writ petitions have been pending before this Court since 2002 and that by virtue of interim orders passed in these writ petitions, the show-cause notices were permitted to be proceeded with and adjudication orders were allowed to be passed, however, this Court made it clear that the same would not be implemente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
