9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar taking over the management of the company, Mr. Dinkar Dogra was the managing director. The order dated 4th June 2008 passed by this Court dismissing Mr. Dinkar Dogra's Criminal Appeal [2008 (6) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT] discusses in detail the evidence showing Mr. Dogra to be incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the company. There is no evidence to show in what manner the present Appellant, Mrs. Kavita Dogra was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. As already noticed, neither the adjudication order nor the impugned order of the AT discusses the facts peculiar to the Appellant. - Court is, therefore, satisfied that the DoE failed to make out a case of contravention of Section 18 (2) FERA as far as the Appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in any manner with the day-to-day affairs of the company. 4. The Deputy Director, DoE, passed an adjudication order on 28th October 2003 referring to the replies of the company and its directors including the reply of the Appellant. 5. A perusal of the said adjudication order shows that there was no separate consideration of the individual cases of each of the directors. There is an omnibus finding to the effect that export had taken place when S/Shri Dinkar Dogra, Ashish Dogra, Kiran Chimalwar and Smt. Kavita Dogra were responsible against whom the show cause notice was issued, to realize the money. There was no application of mind to the precise role and responsibility of the Appellant in the day-to-day affairs of the company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA is in the nature of a deeming provision, the proviso thereto contemplates rebuttal of such presumption by a person who is able to show that the contravention took place without his or her knowledge. 10. Section 68 FERA reads as under: 68. Offences by companies - (1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder is a company, every person who, at the time of the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsibile to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a cyclostyled form and the averments as regards all the directors is identical. There is no specific mention of the precise role of the Appellant in managing the day-to-day affairs of the company. The case of the Appellant is different from that of Mr. Dinkar Dogra. Prior to Mr. L.R. Sridhar taking over the management of the company, Mr. Dinkar Dogra was the managing director. The order dated 4th June 2008 passed by this Court dismissing Mr. Dinkar Dogra's Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2008 discusses in detail the evidence showing Mr. Dogra to be incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the company. There is no evidence to show in what manner the present Appellant, Mrs. Kavita Dogra was responsible to the company for the conduct of its busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
