Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... way the order of the Adjudicating Authority will go. It cannot also be said at this stage whether the Adjudicating Authority even if deciding against the appellants will rely upon the material before it qua which the appellants claim a right of cross-examination. All this can be known only when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order and qua which if the appellants are aggrieved, the appellants shall have their statutory remedy. Any interference by us at this stage in the proceedings of which the Adjudicating Authority is seized is thus uncalled for and would result in a situation which the Supreme Court has warned the High Courts to avoid. - The Supreme Court [2006 (11) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the writ jurisdiction b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Section 8 of the Act, to both the appellants calling upon the appellants to show cause why the property provisionally attached should not be declared to be the property involved in money laundering and confiscated by the Central Government and directed the appellants to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 11th November, 2013. The appellants filed their reply before the Adjudicating Authority and also claim to have filed applications dated 9th 10th January, 2014 respectively under Section 11 of the Act read with Regulation 18 of the Adjudicating Authority Regulations, 2006, seeking permission for cross-examination of witnesses on whose statements, according to the appellants, the complaints against them were based. 4. It is the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the memorandum of appeals itself that the Adjudicating Authority on 17th January, 2014 orally dismissed fresh applications dated 17th January, 2014 filed by the appellants calling upon the Adjudicating Authority to pass a separate order on the applications of the appellants for cross-examination and reserved the matter for final orders, though to the knowledge of the appellants, no final order has been pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority till now. 8. The senior counsel for the appellant in LPA No.99/2014, has argued: (i) that Section 11 of the Act vests in the Adjudicating Authority the powers of the Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 in the matter of discovery and inspection, enforcing the attendance of any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also laying down that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise should be decided together so as to rule out the possibility of any litigation at interlocutory stage. Attention of the senior counsel for the appellants is also invited to National Council for Cement Building Materials Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 206 noticing the appalling situation created due to challenge to the decision on preliminary issues in the High Court and during which time the reference is stayed and lies dormant and laying down that the High Court should refuse to intervene in the proceedings before the Tribunals at an interlocutory stage. 10. We have enquired from the senior counsel for the appellant, whether not the appellants, by filing these procee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellants will rely upon the material before it qua which the appellants claim a right of cross-examination. All this can be known only when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order and qua which if the appellants are aggrieved, the appellants shall have their statutory remedy. Any interference by us at this stage in the proceedings of which the Adjudicating Authority is seized is thus uncalled for and would result in a situation which the Supreme Court has warned the High Courts to avoid. Reference may also be made to Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana AIR 2007 SC 906 reiterating that the reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice is that at that stage the writ petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates