IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1148 of 2008 M/s. Madhav Maganlal & Co. Petitioner Vs. Union of India Respondent Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. S. Rao i/b M. S. Kumthekar, for the petitioner. Mr. K. J. Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. R. Mishra, for the Respondent. CORAM : Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 6, 2008. PC :- . Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rana waives service for the respondent. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange whereby the tribunal had directed the appellant to make the pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty, - 2 - amounting to Rs. 1.2 Crores. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Dada for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, the alleged incident took place in the year 1991, and the show cause notice has been issued on 31st May 2002 i.e. on the last date on which, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act expired. The said show-cause notice, though issued in the year 2002, was served in June-July 2003. Over and above Mr. Dada, the learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that, in fact, in the partnership firm all the partners, who were partners at the relevant time in the year 1991 have ceased to be partners. Right from the date of the adjudication order, they were not partners at the relevant time, even when the show cause notice was issued, they were not partners. Over and above Mr. Dada has also pointed out that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was seized from the petitioner firm, which is still lying with the respondent for the last almost 17 years, which amount would have now easily become upto Rs.35 lacs. Mr. Rana, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent also does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and - 3 - circumstances of the case, we find that in the larger interest justice especially a party has to be heard in the appeal, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner partnership firm to give a bank guarantee of Rs.15 lacs, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.5 lacs, which is seized by the respondent. The said bank guarantee to be furnished in favour of the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. The above shall be treated as pre-deposit. 6. In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the tribunal, which shall stand substituted by this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 7. The tribunal shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of furnishing the aforesaid bank guarantee. Sd/- [Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] Sd.- [ A. P. BHANGALE, J.]