$- * 4 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) 8230/2007 CLASSIC CREDIT LTD. ..... petitioner Thro'gh Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, senior Advocate witrr iMr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates VCTSLIS SPECIAI DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Matta, Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Rarn Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocates w.P.(c) 823r/2007 KARTIK K. PAREKH .... petitioner Tluough l\ulr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Arnit Mahajan, Advocates VETSUS SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Matta, Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Ram Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocates w.P.(c) 8232/2007 PANTHAR FINCAP & MANAGEMENT /' 6 -r Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified iJ ._l SERVICES LTD ..... petitioner Through Mr. Rajiru Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates 7 -r- SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Matta, Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Ram Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocates AND w.P.(c) 838st2007 KETAN PAREKH ..... petitioner Tluough Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Arnit Mahajan, Advocates VETSUS SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Matta, Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Rarn Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behua, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER 26.07.2010 1. There is a categorical pronouncement on 12fl'April 2010 by the Supreme Conrt in Rai Kamar Shivhure v. Assistunt Director, Directorate of \1 th ':r , A/Ir Ertforcement (2010) 4 SCC 772 that even an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in an application seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit of the penalty would be appealable under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 ('FEMA') and that flre remedy under Article 226 of the constitution is not available against such order. 2' In that view of the tnatter, the present petitions cannot be entertained by flris Cout' It is, however, open to the Petitioners to avail of the appropriate remedy in tenns of para 45 of the above judgment of the supreme court. 3. The petitions are disrnissed. JULY 26,2010 rk S.MURALIDHAR, J -