9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches and confers powers to arrest as well. The violation of FERA is, thus a grave and serious issue. Its strict and stringent provisions enable the authorities to adjudicate into the breaches of the law, and thereafter, if proved, impose penalties. That is how the impugned order proceeds. The impugned order does not show that the petitioner was duly served, but deliberately did not appear or avoided to appear. Having received the show cause notice and related papers, he did not file any reply. He avoided even the service of the proceedings. The above is not the position emerging from the order itself. Rather the order is passed after observing that certain attempts to serve the petitioner were made but having not found him at the premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of M/s. Time Video Group of Companies, was searched. 4. On the basis of certain documents, the Directorate then recorded the statements of Shri Dhirajlal N. Shah. He stated during the course of his deposition that his brother, the petitioner before us, was the author of the diary and certain documents. It is the petitioner, who had written the details of payments made by him to various persons in India during their visits abroad and that equivalent amounts paid to him by the said persons on the instructions of Ramesh N. Shah, the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, on 10th April, 1996, the statement of the petitioner was also recorded in which he stated that he was residing in Dubai where he was carrying out business in different names and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the servant inadvertently and that he was not aware of the present whereabouts of the Ramesh Shah, the petitioner before us. 10. This show cause notice was purportedly served under Rule 10(c) of the Adjudication Proceedings Appeals Rules, 1974 by affixture on the front door of the premises namely 203, 2nd floor, Rachana, V.P. Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. The petitioner, however, in this Petition, in the cause title, has mentioned his address as 705, BWing, Sheel Building, Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400 056. 11. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that no reply was received to the show cause notice and personal hearing in the case was fixed before the Special Director on 9/11/1998. Since the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out and the search and seizure operation at office and residential premises of Time Group of Companies owned by petitioner s brother Dhirajlal Nanji Shah and Hasmukh Nanji Shah. The petitioner claims that he has no business interest or any connection with the said Group of Companies. Then, when he was on visit to India and residing with his brother Hasmukh Shah, at the address mentioned in the show cause notice, it is stated that a search was carried out at the brother s residence and some documents and papers belonging to the petitioner were seized. 14. Thereupon, the petitioner s statement was recorded not by the FERA Authorities, but the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The authorities under the Income Tax Act never cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 22 years. 17. Hence, that order was also set aside by the Advisory Board set up and established under COFEPOSA. Then, petitioner became aware of the impugned order dated 24/11/2000. After he came to know of the same, he has specifically alleged that as he was placed in the above situation and having not been made aware of the show cause notice, the impugned order passed thereon is exparte and caused grave and serious prejudice to him. 18. Mr. Thakore submits that none of the grounds in the Writ Petition and specifically on the point have been controverted nor the above narrated factual position. 19. After hearing both sides we are satisfied that the impugned order indeed caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The penalty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ah, the order was passed in his absence. Once the factual position as stated in the Writ Petition is undisputed, then, this Writ Petition must succeed. 20. We allow the Petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 21. The impugned order stands quashed and set aide only to the extent of the proceedings/show cause notice issued to the petitioner Ramesh N. Shah. It being a common order and referring to other show cause notices, we clarify that our order and direction shall not affect the legality and validity of these proceedings. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner shall be decided denovo and a fresh order can be passed as per the provisions of the FERA and Rules for adjudication made thereunder. 22. The show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
