9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irperson. This revision petition is directed against the order No. SDE(RS) IV/76-77/84 dated 8-10-1984 whereby the charges against the two respondents were dropped and directed to be filed for the reason that one Mohd. Thamby could not be produced by the petitioner for cross-examination. It is noted that vide their orders in Appeal No. 121 of 1972 dated 16-9-1978 and Appeal No. 135 of 1972 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck for re-consideration only on a limited point but he went into other questions as well while acquitting the respondents. The petitioner further submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that the transactions carried out by Mohd. Thamby did not, in any way, relate to the respondents and further contended that the learned Adjudicating Authority erred in holding Mohd. Thamb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul AIR 1974 SC 859 at page 864 and K. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP AIR 1979 SC 387 at page 391. 3. The respondent No. 2 made written submission vide his petition dated 28-6-2001 praying for dismissal of revision petition on the following grounds, namely : (i) The power under section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to revise an order passed by a senior and highly placed Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondent No. 2 further submitted that Special Director (Enforcement) has only given effect to the order dated 19-7-1978 of the Appellate Board, which order has become final as the department had not taken up the said decision on further appeal and, therefore, there is no case for revision. 4. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the parties referred to above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
