9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar V. Shah ORDER 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Adjudicating Order No. ADJ/166/B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 29-11-1996 whereby the adjudication proceedings initiated against the respondent pursuant to Show-Cause Notice No. T-4/56-B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 5-5-1996 were dropped. 2. Shri Gadoo on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conclusions made by the learned adjudicating officer were wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the grounds of latches which are writ large on the face of the petition. The impugned order is of 29-11-1996 and the present revision petition has been filed on 2-7-2001, almost after five years and the petitioner has not explained the delay of such a long period and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this very ground alone. Shri Chandra further submitted that the seized foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 226 on the ground of latches where, on account of the delay, other interests have come into being. On merits, Shri Chandra submitted that the petition is bad on account of non-verification. The respondent furnished requisite bills, giving the detailed break-up of total expenses of six patients. The petitioner should have crossed checked the same before initiating adjudication proceedings. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doo sought to explain delay by submitting that the matter was referred to the Government handwriting expert on 16-3-1998 and opinion was obtained on 30-4-1998 and since then the file has been with the Vigilance Department. He referred to the case of Director of Enforcement v. Ajitabh Bachhan [Appeal No. 437 of 1990] as decided by the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board wherein revision petition was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so, he is only to blame himself. In the revision petition, the petitioner has not made any reference as to why petition is being filed after almost 5 years of the passing of the impugned order. At the hearing, Shri Gadoo sought to make a very feeble attempt to explain the delay in filing the revision petition but without much success. Even on merits, I do not find that the present case warrants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
