AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.275 OF 2009 MTL Instruments Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. The Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Amit Desai, senior counsel with Ms. Sneha Phene i/b Little & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. Shiraj Rustomji with Mr. Dhiraj Mhatre i/b M. Humranwalla & Co. for respondent 1. Mr. H.K. Vardhan with Mr. V.B. Tiwari for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of MTL Instruments Group Plc. UK., and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of electronic instrumentation and protection equipments for process control and telecommunication industry. AJN 2 2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner is that certain trading activities were carried out by the petitioner without the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (for short, “the FIPB”). It appears that the petitioner approached FIPB for ex-post facto approval vide letter dated 30/3/2007. The Ministry of Finance, FIPB Unit, vide letter dated 31/5/2007 informed the petitioner that they are not in a position to grant ex-post facto approval. The petitioner vide its letter dated 22/6/2007 sought certain clarifications from the FIPB and reconfirmed that the omission of the prior approval on the part of the petitioner was due to oversight and, therefore, the petitioner had voluntarily disclosed the said omission vide its letter dated 30/3/2007. The FIPB Unit vide its letter dated 10/7/2007 stated that the matter of the petitioner had been forwarded to respondent 1 - Reserve Bank of India. Respondent 1 vide its letter dated 25/3/2008 informed the petitioner that the petitioner's case has been referred to the compounding authority for compounding AJN 3 for contravention. 3. It appears that personal hearing was given to the petitioner and, respondent 1 by impugned order dated 10/12/2008 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,85,00,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of respondent 1, within 15 days from the date of the said order. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition. 4. It may be noted, at this stage, that pursuant to interim order dated 24/12/2008, an amount of Rs.3 crores has been deposited by the petitioner with respondent 1. As per the interim order, on deposit of the said amount, the impugned order was stayed. 5. We have heard Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. We have also heard Mr. Rustomji, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1. AJN 4 6. We find that certain submissions and figures of the net profit which appear in the petition were not placed before the compounding authority by the petitioner. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, the petitioner must be given a chance to place those submissions and the figures of net profit before the compounding authority. The compounding authority may then deal with those submissions and the figures placed before him and pass a fresh order independently and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make a fresh application to the compounding authority within six weeks from today. 7. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, following order will meet the ends of justice: (a) The impugned order dated 10/12/2008 is set aside. We make it clear that it is not AJN 5 set aside on merits and, therefore, there is no question of finding any fault with it. (b) If as stated by the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner makes an application before the compounding authority within six weeks from today, the compounding authority shall consider it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The compounding authority may give personal hearing to the petitioner. (c) The compounding authority shall pass order on the application independently and in accordance with law as we have not considered the merits of the case. (d) Needless to say that if no such application is made by the petitioner within six weeks AJN 6 from today, the legal consequences will follow: (e) The amount of Rs.3 crores deposited by the petitioner under the interim orders of this court shall be refunded to the petitioner by respondent 1, within a period of two weeks from today. (f) We make it clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts of this case and shall not to be treated as a precedent. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. 9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]