9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1. These two writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 19-9-2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange ('Appellate Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. 688/2000 and 657/2000 respectively. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit and directed each of them to deposit within 30 days their entire respective penalty amounts as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and passing of an ex parte order, in the circumstances, was not supportable in law and that the adjudication order was ex parte bad. I have considered the materials on record. The notices were apparently issued November, 1983. The Petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice does indicate that he did not want to make any grievance about the non-supply of documents. In these circumstances, prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WP (Civil) No. 9218/2007, the same order was passed on 11-12-2007. It is stated that both Petitioners have since deposited 15 per cent of the penalty amount as directed. 4. The submissions of Mr. R.K. Handoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Respondents have been heard. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners made several submissions touching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be served if the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is modified, and it is directed that the Petitioners' appeal should be heard on merits now that each of them has deposited 15 per cent of the penalty amount as directed by this Court. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal will stand modified accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal will proceed with the final hearing of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
