Full Text
Through: Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocates with Mr. Neil Hildreth, Advocate.
SPECIAL DIRECTOR,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS ..... Respondents
JSW STEEL LTD
~3592/2011
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dushyant Dave and
SPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with
Through:
Mr. Manikya Khanna and Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocates.
V. S. SESHAGIRI RAO ..... Petitioner W. P. (C) Nos. 3591,3592 and 3593 of2011
Through: Mr. Dushyant Dave and Page 1 of5 2011:DHC:18987
-\
Mr. Manikya Khanna and
Through:
Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocates.
CM APPL No. 7517/2011 in W.P. (C) No. 3592/2011
CM APPL No. 7520/2011 in W.P. (C) No. 359112011
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 359112011 & CM APPL No. 751112011 (for Stay)
W.P. (C) No. 3592/2011 & CM APPL No. 7516/2011 (for Stay)
~P. (C) No. 3593/2011 & CM APPL No. 7519/2011 (for Stay)
)
ORDER
1. The Petitioners have filed review petitions under Section 28(2)(f) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ('FEMA') against the order dated November 2010 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange ('Tribunal') rejecting the Petitioners' appeals. However, they have approached this Court under extraordinary circumstances where their review petitions are unable to be heard by the Tribunal in the absence of its Chairperson.
2. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate ofEnforcement (2010) 4 SCC 772 there can be no challenge to a final order of the Tribunal by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The remedy for the Petitiol).ers is to file appeals before the High Court in terms of para 45 of the said judgment. --<: However, since the review petitions have been filed, the Petitioners have not yet availed of the remedy of an appeal. Meanwhile, on the basis of the dismissal of their appeals by the Tribunal, the Respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, is seeking to recover the demanded amount.
3. In these peculiar circumstances, where the present petitions cannot be entertained and where their review petitions cannot be heard by the Tribunal, ~ the Petitioners pray that till the time they file their appeals before the High Court against the order dated 26th November 2010 of the Tribunal, they should be afforded some interim protection against any coercive steps taken by the Respondents.
4. It must be recorded here that this prayer is vehemently opposed by Mr. Sachin Datta, learned counsel appearing for Respondents, who states that if
5. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners will secure the interests of the Respondents by furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the entire amount which is sought to be demanded by the Respondents as a result of the dismissal of their appeal by the Tribunal.
6. In v1ew of the above submissions, it is directed that subject to the.-.·· Petitioners filing their respective appeals in the High Court against the aforementioned judgment of the Tribunal alongwith application for condonation of delay and interim directions on or before 13th June 2011 and subject to their furnishing within one week from today a bank guarantee equivalent to the entire amount of demand to the satisfaction of Special Director, Enforcement, no coercive steps will be taken against the Petitioners till the consideration of their applications for interim directions
7. It is clarified that this order is passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case and is not to be treated as a precedent. It is further clarified that this,/~ourt has not expressed any view on the merits ofthe case.
8. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications are also disposed of.
9. Order dasti to the counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master. MAY 25,2011 aft
S. MURALIDHAR, J