9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Fora, as has been held in the Judgment relating to Ram Kishor Gupta [ 2003 (1) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT] No merit in the Review Applications filed by the Review Petitioners. We therefore dismiss the Review Petitions filed. - SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER And SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER For the Appellants : Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Varun Mishra, Adv. ORDER This Order disposes of the Review Applications dated 02/12/2015 filed by the Appellants Shri Som Nath Sikka in Appeal No. FPA-FE- 20/JL/2014 and Shri Ramesh Kumar in Appeal No. FPA-FE- 21/JL/2014. 2. On perusal of the record it is revealed that the Joint Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar vide Order No.JD/JL/1/2014/GB dated 27.03.2014 imposed penalty of Rs.34,00,000/- on each of the two Appellants herein viz Shri Som Nath Sikka and Shri Ramesh Kumar under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for contravention of the provisions of Sections 9(1) (b) and 9 (1) (d) of FERA. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority further ordered that the amount of Rs.60,000/-, seized from the residence of Shri Ramesh Kumar on 11.10.1995 lying with the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit and the Appeal be heard on merit. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further argued that while for the Review Petitioner Shri Som Nath Sikka Prosecution Complaint under FERA was filed, the Trial Court had acquitted him. Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the Order of the Trial Court. Compliance to the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal would cause hardship in view of his acquittal in the Prosecution Proceedings. In any case, Shri Sikka is a chronic heart patient and has no earning. Ld. Counsel pleaded to allow the two Review Applications. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the two Review Applications are not maintainable in view of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) which is replicated as below: - ORDER XLVII REVIEW 1. Application for review of judgment. -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in the Review Petitions cannot hold good since such grounds were available during the course of the earlier proceedings before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the Hon ble Tribunal, the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent also argued that the Prosecution proceedings under FERA before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has no bearing on the Adjudication Proceedings. While in the former the evaluation of evidence is based on the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is much more exacting than the standard required for the latter wherein the evidence is evaluated in terms of the tenet of preponderance of probability. In fact, the failure to make pre-deposit of the penalty amount in compliance to the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal, after the extended time period which expired on 16.11.2015, the Appellants/Review Petitioners are in contempt of this Hon ble Tribunal and of the Hon ble High Court. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent pleaded to dismiss the two Review Petitions. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent in support of his arguments cited the following paragraphs of the Judgment dated 10.01.2003 of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/ decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Order in spite of no conviction in prosecution proceedings, cannot be ruled out. 13. This Tribunal in its Final Order dated 29.05.2024 in the Appeals No. FPA-FE-311/DLI/2005 and FPA-FE-77/DLI/2005 has observed in paragraph 25 the following: The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra-2011 AIR SCW 1479) is relevant. Para 38 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: 38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; ii) Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; vi) The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favor of the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to Kamal Sengupta (Supra). Moreover, after having failed to obtain favorable orders from the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana and from the Hon ble Supreme Court, then there is no question of filing the reviews of the Order dated 27.03.2015 which has been affirmed by these higher Judicial Fora, as has been held in the Judgment relating to Ram Kishor Gupta (Supra). 17. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we do not find any merit in the Review Applications filed by the Review Petitioners Shri Som Nath Sikka and Shri Ramesh Kumar. We therefore dismiss the Review Petitions filed in the Appeals FPA-FE-20/JL/2014 and FPA-FE- 21/JL/2014. 18. Since the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal has not been satisfied by the two Appellants/Review Petitioners till date, which is much beyond the extended timeline of 16.11.2015 given by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, the Appeals filed by the two Appellants are dismissed as the statutory requirement of the second proviso to Section 52 (2) of FERA has not been satisfied. 19. The Appeals No. FPA-FE-20/JL/2014 and FPA-FE-21/JL/2014 and the Review Applications filed by Shri Som Nath Sikka and Shri Ramesh Kumar are therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
