$- * 4 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) 823012007 CLASSIC CREDIT LTD. ..... Petitioner Through i\[r. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with AzIr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates VETSUS SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Matta, Vft. C.S. Chauhan, Mr. Ram Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behrra, Advocates w.P.(c) 823u2007 KARTIK K. PAREKH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates . versus 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 Behtua, Advocates w.P.(c) 823212007 5 -r 6./ + PANTHAR FINCAP & MANAGEMENT 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 .i"'t L SERVICES LTD versus ..... Petitioner./. Through IW. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate *iifil. Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates 7 + SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate with . Mr. Naveen Maffa, I\dr. C.S. Chauhan, Xdr. Ram Avtar and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocates AND w.P.(c) 838s/2007 KETAN PAREKH ..... petitioner Through lzlr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and IVIr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates 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 CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER "A 26.07.2010 1. There is a categorical pronoulcement on 12t April 2010 by the Supreme Cotrrt in Rai Kamar Shivhare v. Assistunt Director, Directorote of _D' - Enforcement .(2010)-4 SCC 772 that even an order passed by the Appella 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 fte 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 this Court. 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 dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 26,2010 rk