1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE FERA APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5700 OF 2008 IN FERA APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2008 NOSHIR B. CAPTAIN .. APPELLANTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS WITH FERA APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5701 OF 2008 IN FERA APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2008 EUROPEAN INVESTMENTS LTD. .. APPELLANTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Zyal Andhyarujina i/b L. S. Shetty for appellants Mr. P. S. Jetly with Y. R. Mishra for respondents 2 CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE: 30/3/2009 P.C. . Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing. 2. The basic grievance of the appellants is that during the course of hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal gave oral notice to learned counsel for the appellants as to why penalty should not be increased and the Tribunal enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs.10 lakhs and 1 lac from the company i.e. the appellant in FERA Appeal No. 83 of 2008 and the power of attorney holder of the company i.e. the appellant in FERA Appeal No. 82 of 2008 respectively to 2 Crores each. Learned counsel submitted that such a course is not permissible. In this connection he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court to which one of us (i.e. J. P. Devadhar, J.) was a party in Sanjay Khan, Managing Director M/s. World Resorts Ltd. v. Shri A. K. Bal, Special Director, FERA Appeal No. 49 of 2008 decided on 16/10/08. 3 3. We have also heard Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enhance the penalty and in any event, without issuing a proper notice the Tribunal could not have enhanced the penalty. 5. Admittedly no notice to enhance the penalty was given to the appellant. Giving an opportunity of hearing for enhancing the penalty could not be given orally at the time of hearing. In this view of the matter and in the light of the judgment of this court in the case of Sanjay Khan (supra), we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. 6. We, however, make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have not expressed any opinion. 7. Appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms. 8. Needless to say that civil applications are also disposed of. 4 JUDGE JUDGE