9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be said to be privy to or in the know of the illegality committed and no case for imposition of penalty against them was made out – petitioner unable to explain as to how the petitioner is affected by the order so as to have a locus to challenge the same. petition dismissed. - W.P. (C) NO. 5578 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2011 - RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Rajiv Gupta for the Petitioner. Sachin Datta, Ms. Gayatri Verma and Abhimanyu Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 8th September, 2009 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, inter alia allowing the appeals of respondent No.7 Sh. B.N. Jha, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Aliganj, Lucknow and of respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal were filed by the said M/s. Prime Petro Products Ltd. and Mr. R.K. Mishra also. However, they failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit and thus their appeals were dismissed by the same order dated 8th September, 2009 ( supra ). 5. The Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeals of Mr. B.N. Jha and Bank of Baroda holding that on the material on record, the due diligence practiced by the Bank and its officer Mr. B.N. Jha was established and the findings of the Enforcement Directorate of contravention of statutory provisions by them were based on wrong assumptions. It was held that the Bank had at the time of granting loan to the petitioner obtained her undertaking that she was not taking the loan for further commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am of the opinion that once the petitioner was not a necessary or a proper party in the appeal, no grievance of non-impleadment can be made. 10. It has next been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the prejudice which the petitioner suffers from the order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals of the Bank and its official. The order as aforesaid only finds them to be not in violation of the provisions of law aforesaid and thus not liable for any penalty. It is not as if the said penalty amount was to come to the petitioner. 11. The counsel for the petitioner is again unable to explain as to how the petitioner is affected by the order so as to have a locus to challenge the same. The only reason state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
