9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Appeal Nos. 153 and 155 of 1990 are by one Pushpa Devi Jajoo whereas Appeal No. 154 is by one Shri Gopi Krishan Jajoo, Appeal Nos. 156, 158 and 159 by Ram Krishan Jajoo and Appeal No. 157 by one Shri Hari Krishan Jajoo all partners of Jajoo Brothers, who was noticee No. 1 in the adjudication proceedings; Ram Krishan Jajoo was second respondent/noticee in the aforesaid proceedings. SCN No. 1 T-4/88-D/81 was in respect of contravention of sections 12(2) and 4(1) against the firm Jajoo Brothers and its 4 partners. In SCN-2 T-4/91-D/81 and SCN-3 T-4/90-D/81 of 1981, the charge laid down was of contravention of section 4(1) FERA, 1947 against the firm and its 3 partners; show cause notices T-4/89-D/81, T-4/92-D/81 and T-4/93-D/81 were for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(1) and 9 of FERA, 1947 ; aggrieved with the said findings and orders, these appeals were preferred by the respective appellants. Appeal Nos. 153 and 155 were filed by Pushpa Devi, a partner of the firm. The appeal 153 is challenging the findings and orders of penalty of Rs. 2,000 for contravention of section 4(1) whereas Appeal No. 155 of 1990 is in respect of findings and orders of penalty for contravention of sections 12(2) and 4(1) of the Act, 1947. These appeals were jointly heard for disposal. 3. The common plea raised in all these appeals is that the evidence relied on by the adjudicating officer were materials not acceptable in evidence and that the mode of the decision was contrary to known principles of law and justice. In all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders the noticee/respondents are (1) Jajoo Brothers and (2) Ram Krishan Jajoo; the order is numbered as 23 to 28 Adjudication/AD; in effect it is single order. 8. In Appeals 153 and 155 of 1990, the appellant challenges the impugned findings and orders of penalty on the plea that the relevant details or facts were never furnished to the appellant despite requested therefor, and that the appellant was innocent of alleged violations; according to the appellant in appeals 153 and 155 there was absolutely no convincing evidence against her for the alleged charges and she was never in charge of the firm at the relevant time. According to the appellant, the prosecution had not even issued a proper notice as called for under section 23C(i) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him on the ground that the deposition/statements of John Ashlyn was wrongly relied on, he was brother of Hari Krishna Jajoo and husband of Prem Lata Devi; appellant in Appeal No. 157 of 1990 who had taken US dollars 800 in the form traveller's cheque from Sails S.A. and that out of the said sum, US Dollars 100 was paid in the form of travellers cheques of 50 dollars each to Sails S.A. and that there was no violation of any statutory provisions nonetheless the said section 4(1). According to the appellant in appeal No. 156 of 1990, the impugned findings is bad in law for want of convincing evidence and on account of the acceptance of inadmissible materials in evidence. The appellant in Appeal No. 156 of 1990 further impugnes the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings. The appellant in appeal 154 of 1990 raised a specific plea that they had ceased to be the partners of the firm as early as in 1971 and they were never in management of the affairs of the firm thereafter. So also the appellant in appeals 153 and 155 has raised a plea that she was never in management of the firm that if at all any deed made without her knowledge by any partners, it would not bind her. Again it is a plea common to all the appeals that in the show cause notices issued to the respective appellants, the details of the violations were never shown and the adjudicating officer had erred in relying on untested evidence of John Ashlyn. I have duly considered the validity of this plea. The Learned ALA Shri A.C. Singh su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 50 of FERA, 1973); the firm and the partners were also called upon to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against them for the said contraventions. In view of the show cause notice and the contents therein, there is no merits in the plea of the appellants that no notice as contemplated under section 23C(1) was served on the partners of the firm. The records reveal that all the partners, were served show cause notice in the adjudication proceedings regarding the alleged contraventions/charges. 15. Relying on the documents referred to by the adjudicating officer in the impugned findings and orders and also pleadings on either side. I find no infirmity or illegality in the findings so as to call for any interventio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
