9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paikaray, Advocate JUDGMENT FPA-FE-237/CHD/2002 A stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority vide his impugned order dated 23.04.2002 has been filed alongwith the appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Suri stated the following: a. that there is no one by the name of Mr. Ram Nath and it is actually Mr. Mohinder Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant b. that the appellant is one Mr. Ram Nath and not Mr. M.S. Cheera as mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant although he did agree that the impugned order has recorded that Mr. M.S. Cheera resident of U.K. tried to impersonate Shri Ram Nath, the noticee c. that Mr. M.S. Cheera had filed an application for amendment to take Mr. M.S. Cheera as the appellant since it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rguments and also perused the documents on record. Briefly, the case is that one Shri Ram Nath a person resident in India acquired foreign exchange amounting to GBP5983430.13 plus interest in his account in the Bank of India, Paris Branch. The said amount was acquired from one Shri Mohinder Singh and his family members resident of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Mr. Ram Nath did not have any previous perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the name of Mr. Ram Nath. But it does not throw any light on the existence or otherwise of Mr. Ram Nath the noticee in this case. The impugned order has discussed in detail the involvement of Mr. Ram Nath. Coming to the merits of the present case for the limited purpose of the stay petition, the learned counsel for the appellant has so far not submitted any judgment on similar facts and issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
