9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited. Petitioner was a director in M/s Sachdeva Sons Rice Mills Limited, a separate legal entity, which was a partner in firm M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries. On dissolution of M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries, partnership firm on 5.5.1997, M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries (P) Limited, came into existence, which took over the business of M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries, but the petitioner was not inducted as director in the newly incorporated company. There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. Once, prima facie, on the basis of material produced on record before this Court, it is found that the petitioner was not the director in the company, namely, M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries (P) Limited, directing her to deposit part of penalty as preconditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for entertainment of appeal without any prior deposit of the amount of penalty. Vide order dated 14.7.2009, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the amount of penalty as precondition for entertainment of appeal to be heard on merits. As the petitioner claimed that she was never the Director of M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries (P) Limited, Amritsar, she filed review application. The same was dismissed vide order dated 24.6.2015. The aforesaid orders have been impugned before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountants, submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achdeva Sons Industries Private Limited, hence, she is a director in the company and liable to be penalized. The precondition for entertainment of appeal does not deserve to be set aside. The Tribunal has merely directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. At this stage, we are not opining finally on the merit of the controversy as the issue is pending before the Tribunal. However, there is prima facie, merit in the case set up by the petitioner. There is a certificate produced from the Chartered Accountants at page 26 of the writ petition certifying that the petitioner had never been the director of the company, namely, M/s Sachdeva Sons Industries (P) Limited. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
