TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on going through the materials placed before us and after carefully considering the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, we find that we have to necessarily deal with a lot of documents and get into disputed questions of fact. To avoid such a scenario, the enactment itself provides for further remedies under Section 19 of FEMA before the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, under Section 35 of the Act, by way of filing a further Appeal before the High Court against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. These remedies have been provided to enable an aggrieved person to contest the order passed by the adjudicating authority, both on facts and on law. These appellate remedies cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious factual issues that were raised on either side. The petitioners are permitted to file appeal against the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. - W.P.No.11210 of 2010 And MP Nos, 1, 2 and 3 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash And Honourable Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh For the Petitioners : Mr.F.B.Benjamin George For the Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (ED) ORDER The Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) and its employees have questioned the adjudication order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement in proceedings no.ADJ/14-15/B/SDE/RAJ/2010/FERA 3645 dated 25.02.2010, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. 3 . Heard Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the IOB is an authorised dealer in foreign exchange and it is the Reserve Bank of India(RBI)which is empowered to issue directions and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act and the RBI had already exercised its powers under Section 73(3) of FERA and directed the IOB to repatriate/surrender the amount that had already gone out of India and the same has been complied with by the bank and reported to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FEMA makes it abundantly clear that all offences committed under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act, as if that Act has not been repealed. Section 49(5) of FEMA further makes it clear that any action taken under the repealed Act, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of FEMA, be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of FEMA. The effect of the above provisions is that the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement on 25.02.2010 in accordance with FERA, must be treated to be an order under FEMA and consequently, the appellate remedy available under FEMA will automatically apply and that is the reason why, even in the impugned proceedings dated 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of fact. There is no absolute bar in High Court entering into disputed questions of fact and it will depend upon the facts of each case. The law on this issue has been succinctly put by the Apex Court NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta reported in (2009) 8 SCC 339. 11 . In the instant case, on going through the materials placed before us and after carefully considering the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, we find that we have to necessarily deal with a lot of documents and get into disputed questions of fact. To avoid such a scenario, the enactment itself provides for further remedies under Section 19 of FEMA before the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, under Section 35 of the Act, by way of filing a further Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Mumbai. Just because the IOB has a Treasury(Foreign) Department at Chennai, that by itself will not become a part of the cause of action. This is yet another ground on which we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. 14 . In the light of the above reasoning, we are not inclined to go into the merits of this case and deal with various factual issues that were raised on either side. We are inclined to relegate the petitioners to the Appellate Tribunal to work out their remedy in accordance with law and it will be left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the Appellate Tribunal. 15 . In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The petitioners are permitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
