9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioner, the principle of law enunciated therein, is well recognized, however, being based on individual fact situation involved therein would be of no help to his case. - no merit in the instant writ petitions - Decided against assessee. - CWP No. 20932 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Adv ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of three petitions bearing CWP Nos. 20932, 21024 and 21026 of 2015 as according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the issues involved herein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 20932 of 2015. 2. In this petition filed under A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... morandum. Thereafter, opportunity notice dated 21.2.2002 (Annexure P-3) to all the noticee including the petitioner was issued to show cause as to why legal proceedings under Section 56 of the FERA be not initiated against them. A complaint dated 29.4.2002 (Annexure P-4) was filed by the respondent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar against Som Nath Sikka, Raj Kumar and Tilak Raj Chadha (petitioner herein) only. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.1.2004 and the petitioner submitted his written submissions dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure P-5). However, no action was taken thereon. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P-6) acquitted all the accused. The adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid contention. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the appeal. In the present case, the Tribunal while directing the petitioner(s) to deposit 15% of the amount of penalty imposed and to furnish reliable security for the balance amount of 85% as a pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal has noticed that the petitioner (s) has an arguable case and it would cause hardship in case the waiver is not allowed, but no case of complete waiver was made out. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read as under:- 9. We are convinced that the appellants have an arguable case and will suffer hardship in case the waiver is not allowed to them, however, no case for complete waiver is made out. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
