9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nearly one year after the present appeals were filed. As observed earlier, one of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the appeals have become infructuous, cannot be accepted. However, these appeals are continuation of writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 6th October 2017. The present appeals were pending from 17th November 2017. The adjudicating authority granted enough time to the appellants to seek interim relief in these appeals. The hearing was fixed one year after the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants took the risk of not attending before the adjudicating authority knowing fully well that the appellants were not armed with any ad-interim order of stay of this Court. Thus, due to their own conduct, the appellants allowed the adjudicating authority to pass orders of adjudication. It is not the case of the appellants that they did not receive legal advice. They are represented by Senior Advocates. As pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned show cause notice was issued on the basis of the complaint dated 31st May 2016. 2. We must note here that during the pendency of writ appeals, there is an adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority on the basis of the impugned show cause notice. There are applications made for amendment of the appeals based on the said order of adjudication. 3. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere on the ground that FEMA contains complete network of provisions adequately structuring the rights and regulations available to a person who is aggrieved by any adjudication made under FEMA. The learned Single Judge held that once a reply is submitted to the show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority may take a decision to proceed in the matter or not to proceed. It is also held that against the order of the adjudicating authority, there is a remedy of an appeal provided under FEMA. 4. As far as the writ petition filed by the Company is concerned, the learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of RAJKUMAR SHIVHARE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER (2010) 4 SCC 772. 5. As far as the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication order has been made knowing fully well that the appeals were pending before the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the adjudicating authority ought to have stayed its hands. The second submission is that the remedy under Section 19 of the FEMA is not an efficacious remedy. Thirdly, it was submitted that as the show-cause notice is completely illegal, if it is set aside, the adjudication order passed during the pendency of the appeals will not survive. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the present writ appeals cannot be said to have become infructuous by virtue of passing an order of adjudication. The reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of NAGESH DUTTA SHETTI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2005) 10 SCC 383. He also relied upon the decision in the case of ASLAM MOHD. MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY (2008) 14 SCC 186 Reliance was also placed on the fact that the adjudication order was an ex-parte order. It is also pointed out that the adjudicating authority was made aware about the pendency of the writ appeals in this Court. 8. Before we deal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were fully aware about the date fixed for hearing before the adjudicating authority. There is a default on the part of the appellants as they did not appear before the adjudicating authority and they did not move this Court for grant of appropriate interim relief. Knowing fully well that the adjudicating authority is proceeding with the hearing, the appellants took no steps and allowed the adjudicating authority to pass an order. It is not as if immediately after the impugned order was passed, that the adjudicating authority fixed the matter for hearing. The date for hearing was fixed nearly one year after the present appeals were filed. 11. As observed earlier, one of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the appeals have become infructuous, cannot be accepted. However, these appeals are continuation of writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 6th October 2017. The present appeals were pending from 17th November 2017. The adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
