2010 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT

Writ Jurisdiction- Interlocutory order- The appellant, along with another person, were issued a notice under Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) for receiving unauthorized payments worth ₹ 5 crores under instructions from persons living outside India in connection with his illegal cricket betting operation. He was also asked to explain why the amount of ₹ 1 lac, confiscated during search from his residence, should not be credited to the account of the Central Government under Section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999. Held that- If the appellant in this case is allowed to file a writ petition despite the existence of an efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35 of FEMA this will enable him to defeat the provisions of the Statute which may provide for certain conditions for filing the appeal, like limitation, payment of court fees or deposit of some amount of penalty or fulfillment of some other conditions for entertaining the appeal - It is obvious that a writ court should not encourage the aforesaid trend of by-passing a statutory provision. - liability of the appellant is not created under any common law principle but, it is clearly a statutory liability and for which the statutory remedy is an appeal under Section 35 of FEMA, subject to the limitations contained therein. A writ petition in the facts of this case is therefore clearly not -maintainable.