W.P. (C.) No.6979/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.6979/2008 % Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 S.K. MITTAL …. Petitioner Through Mr.Anish Dhingra, Advocate Versus The Union of India and another …. Respondents Through Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Advcote CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) * This is a petition seeking quashing of order dated 12th August, 2008 passed by learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal No.335 to 337/2003 and directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merit without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs. By order dated 12th August, 2008 in Appeal No.335 to 337/2003, the application of the appellant, Shri S.K. Mittal, was rejected and the W.P. (C.) No.6979/2008 Page 2 of 4 petitioner was directed to deposit the penalty amount within seven days from the date of the receipt of the order dated 12th August, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision dated 5th May, 2009 passed in W.P.C. No.8355 of 2008 titled S.K. Mittal v. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange filed by the petitioner against the penalty amount of Rs.6,41,18,065/- imposed on him for contravention of sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. By order dated 5th May, 2009, it was noticed that the petitioner has filed 178 appeals before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange challenging the penalty orders. This Court in the said writ petition considering the fact that the orders passed directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount and dismissing his appeal for dispensation, had considered the assets of the wife of the petitioner and the lack of the assets of the petitioners were not considered, and considering the facts that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.5.00 lakhs with the Adjudicating Officer and the petitioner showing his willingness to deposit a further amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in two equal installments, first installment of Rs.2.5 lakhs payable by 30th May, 2009 and the balance amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs each payable on or before 31st July, 2009 and 30th September, 2009, granted dispensation with the deposit of the penalty amount. While granting dispensation with the deposit of penalty amount, it was W.P. (C.) No.6979/2008 Page 3 of 4 held categorically that this order will apply equally to and shall govern all 178 appeals which are pending before the Appellate Tribunal by the abovenoted petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the present petition also arises out of one of the appeals bearing No.336/2003, where the application of the petitioner for dispensation with the pre-deposit was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to deposit the penalty amount. Since by order dated 5th May, 2009, it has been held that the decision to dispense with pre-deposit on petitioner depositing Rs.12.50 lakhs shall also be applicable to the appeal from which the present petition has arisen, the present petition can be disposed of in terms of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that first installment of Rs.3.5 lakhs was deposited on 28th May, 2009 and Rs.5.00 lakhs was deposited on 30th July, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the balance amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs shall be deposited by the petitioner before 30th September, 2009. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and all the pending applications are disposed of. The order dated 12th August, 2008 dismissing the application of the petitioner for dispensation with the pre-deposit and directing him to deposit the penalty amount is set W.P. (C.) No.6979/2008 Page 4 of 4 aside. The Appellate Tribunal shall decide the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit of the entire penalty amount in terms of the order passed in W.P(C) No.8355 of 2008 dated 5th May, 2009 and the order passed in the present petition. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Dasti. August 25, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’