9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Petitioner after adjusting the personal penalty in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority - The Enforcement Directorate was duty bound to refund the amount which was seized from the premises of the Petitioner after adjusting the personal penalty in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority - Petition is disposed of - 1742 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2011 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.A. Sayed, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.J. Raichandani, for the Petitioner. Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi with Ms. Anamika Malhotra, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (Oral)]. Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. On 1 February 2002, the Petitioner was informed by the Assistant Director (Administration) that the matter had been taken up with the Deputy Legal Adviser at New Delhi for clearance and the amount would be cleared as soon as clearance is received. Thereafter, since nothing happened, the Petitioner addressed representations through his Advocate on 25 September 2007, 5 November 2007 and 22 February 2008. On 4 March 2008, the Assistant Director called the Petitioner for a personal hearing. Once again reminders were addressed by the Petitioner on 5 February 2009 and 8 June 2009. On 9 July 2009, the Petitioner was informed by the Assistant Director that a refund of Rs. 4.90 lakhs was being examined once again. The Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner or by the Department. The Department was duty bound to make a refund within a reasonable period. The Department failed to do so for nearly 12 years thereafter for which there is not even a plausible explanation in the affidavit in reply. In the reply, it has been stated that the Petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of filing a suit and that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 does not provide for payment of interest in such circumstances. We are of the view that the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate is completely contrary to law. The Enforcement Directorate was duty bound to refund the amount which was seized from the premises of the Petitioner after adjusting the personal penalty in terms of the order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
