Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2009 Shalini Exporets Pvt. Ltd...Petitioner Vs. 1.Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Naresh S. Thacker i/b. Madhur R. Baya, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. S.C. Pal and Mr. P. Khosla i/b. Dr. T.C. Kaushik, for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G.KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 6 th August, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The Adjudication Officer passed an order under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The petitioner herein aggrieved preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal which was numbered as Appeal No.243/05. The Appellants moved by way of dispensation of pre- deposit. By order dated 13 th May, 2005 the Tribunal passed an order to make pre-deposit of 30% of the amount of penalty within 456 days from the date of the order failing which the Appeal would be dismissed on that ground alone. 3. The petitioner herein did not comply with the said direction, but on 6 th February, 2006 moved a Miscellaneous Application for Reveiw/Modification of the order dated 13 th May, 2005. By order of 18 th July, 2008 after hearing the parties the learned Tribunal was pleased to observe in para.8 that Appeal No.24305 is required to be dismissed for non-compliance of pre- deposit order dated 13 th May, 2005. 4. It appears that there was also another appeal being Appeal No.244/05 filed by the Director in the matter of imposition of penalty which we need not advert to, but may only mention that there seems to have been some difference of opinion between the two Bench constituted, whereupon the matter was referred to a third member and consequently on decision of the third Member that appeal came to be disposed of. 5. At the hearing of the appeal on behalf of the petitioner the learned Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal noted that the application for review or recalling of the order it is repeatedly contended by the Director that the appellant company has no financial wherewithal with them to deposit the penalty. On behalf of the appellant company this is what was contended by the learned Counsel before the Tribunal. According to him, the appellant company is neither capable nor intends to abide by the aforesaid pre- deposit order . In para.9 thereafter the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 13 th May, 2005. 6. The petitioner before us contendS that the appeal could not have been dismissed. In our opinion this is totally misuse by the petitioner herein of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. After making a statement before the Tribunal that they will not abide by the order of pre-deposit such a petitioner cannot move this Court and seek its extra ordinary jurisdiction. In the light of the above, we dismiss this petition. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)