9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00, after expiry of 146 days, i.e. 4 months and 25 days. The respondent in both these revision petitions have filed their respective reply against particular revision petition. Further, there is no controversy that these two revision petitions are filed under the signatures of Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA, who has signed as Through but signature on behalf of the petitioner, either as Enforcement Directorate or Director of Enforcement Directorate which are the described names in the title cause or in signature clause, are missing. It is also needs to be stated that these revision petitions are filed with repeated contention that neither RBI granted an extension for realization of export proceeds nor reasonable efforts are shown during adjudication but these relevant factors factually are disregarded by the adjudicating officer, hence, these revision petitions. 4. We have heard Shri L.R. Dhir, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondents in these revision petitions. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, is heard on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement. Both sides have also filed their respective written submissions which taken on record. 5. Firstly, Ld. Counsel Shri L.P. Dhir argued on wide difference betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question. 36. In state of Gujrat v. Patel Raghav Natha 1969 (2) SCC 187 it was observed that when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and nature of the order which was sought to be varied. This aspect does not appear to have been specifically kept in view by the Division Bench. Additionally, the points relating to applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands ( Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and even if it is held that the Act was applicable , the reasonableness of the time during which action should have been initiated were also not considered. It would be hard to give an exact definition of the word reasonable Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic stands now like the jingling of a child's joy. But mankind must be satisfied with the reasonableness within reach; and in cases not covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a contract, the distinction given by Chief Baron Pollock may be suggested, namely, that a reasonable time means as soon as circumstances will permit. In determining what is a reasonable time or an unreasonable time, regard is to be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage or trade or business, if any, with respect to such instrument, and the fact of the particular case The reasonable time which a passenger is entitled to alighting from a train is such time as is usually required by passengers in getting off and on the train in safety at the particular station in question. A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances, as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done; some more protracted space than directly such length of time as may fairly, and property, and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea. Reasonable time always depends on the circumstances of the case (Kinney). It is unreaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , faulty indolence by one or two individual officials cannot be allowed to go unchecked and their negligence, if any, cannot be attributed to the revisionist or Central Government. Needless to add, these revision petitions have been filed without much delay so they are, otherwise, maintainable without any reluctance. 8. It is also argued by Ld. Counsel that these revision petitions are filed by Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA, who is only authorized or engaged in presenting arguments, day to day, on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement before ATFE. This factor, however, cannot go to the benefit of the respondents if, otherwise, the impugned order is wrongly passed disregarding the settled legal position under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Mere non-signing on behalf of Enforcement Directorate or wrongly naming the same is no ground to attack the maintainability because these are mere technicalities cannot block the route of justice. 9. It is amply clear from the language employed in Section 52(4) that the wordings of examining legality, propriety and correctness are verbatim as employed in Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code, The judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so wrongly described in the revision petition as M/s Saket India, Bangalore, but correct name of the respondent-company is M/s Saketh India Ltd, Bangalore . May it be so, but at best this is a wrong description of the name and not wrong identification. The respondent is correctly identified even if description by absence of use of word Ltd. is not shown. No doubt a registered-company should bear a correct name but Enforcement Directorate has not moved any application for any amendment which otherwise could have been allowed. But, the error pointed out in the name of the respondent can be termed as a mere misdescription of the respondent who otherwise is correctly identified. Such a mistake as to the first or last name or a reference to wrong address will not result in failure of prosecution as held in R.v. Norkett, Ex. P. Geach (1915) 139 LTJ 316 and Allan v. Wiseman (1975) RTR 217. Therefore, the objection taken by Ld. Counsel Shri L.P. Dhir, bears no substance and can be overlooked or rejected. 12. As per the facts, the respondents exported goods in the year 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994 where one consignment is of the year 1996, thus, forming the total value of US dollars 3537774.57 eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated above, this direction is not passed in accordance with law because specific result, i.e. reduction in price, is dictated or directed leaving no scope to RBI to examine and decide the question. The argument of Ld. Counsel that no revision petition can be filed against an interim order is totally wrong. These revision petitions are not filed against any interim order but are rather filed against an order dated 13.10.2000 which is finally passed exonerating the respondents who have not shown nor discussed in the impugned order the reasonable efforts which they are required to take in law for repatriation of export proceeds. The other citations of (1) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), (2) Carras Co. Investments Ltd. v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, (1994) 79 Company Cases 631 (Del.- DB); and (3) Shivshakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur, v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659, need not be discussed here because they hardly raise any material relevant question for further consideration. The judgment in Shivshakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur, v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659 has stated that interim orders are not amenable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
