9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion qua the respondents No.3&4. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on 17th February, 2004 and Rule was issued on 9th November, 2004. The counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and the counsel for the respondents No.3&4 have been heard. 3. The Enforcement Directorate had initiated the proceedings against M/s Saz International Pvt. Ltd., petitioner and the respondents No.3&4 for failure to take steps for realization of export outstanding to the tune of US$ 1,37,475. The petitioner as well as the respondents No.3&4 were concerned with the said Company M/s Saz International Pvt. Ltd. The order dated 26th September, 2003 (supra) finds that the export outstanding were due during January, 1985 to June, 1985; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the order dated 28th May, 2010 of the Appellate Tribunal has the remedy of second appeal to this Court. It is thus contended that the remedy of this writ petition would in any case be not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. The counsel for the Enforcement Directorate has also referred to Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2010) 4 SCC 772 to contend that the Apex Court has in the said judgment commented adversely to the entertaining of the writ petitions where the alternative remedy of appeal is provided. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has also not controverted that the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was qua the exoneration of the respondents No.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order sheet does not show that the question of maintainability was gone into at any stage or any finding returned thereon. Merely because notice of the writ petition is issued would not prevent the respondents from taking all pleas available to them including that as to the maintainability of the writ petition. 10. The counsel for the petitioner has next contended that though the challenge was made to the exoneration of the respondents No.3&4 before the Appellate Tribunal also but could not have been so made. It is contended that no appeal lay against such exoneration. 11. There is some controversy as to the provision under which the appeal was maintainable, with the counsel for the respondents contending that the appeal was made under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made under the provisions of the FERA and not under the provisions of FEMA. 13. Once it is held that the grievance as raised in this petition is appealable and once it is admitted that appeal indeed was preferred, this writ petition would definitely be not maintainable. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner on enquiry is unable to state whether any remedy has been taken by the petitioner against the order dated 28th May, 2010 of the Appellate Tribunal. He merely states that he has not been engaged for the said purpose. Even if the Appellate Tribunal has not returned any findings on the grievances raised by the petitioner qua the exoneration of the respondents No.3&4, the dismissal of the appeal indicates that the said grievan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
