W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 1 6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5284-85/2006 Date of decision: 27th July, 2009 NITIN RAMNIKLAL SHAN & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate. Versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR & ANR ..... Respondent Through Mr. Dalip Mehra & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. The petitioners, Mr. Nitin Ramniklal Shah and Mr. Mahesh Ramniklal Shah, have filed the present petition against the order dated 6th March, 2006 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange rejecting their applications for dispensation of pre-deposits of the penalty amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,20,000/- respectively imposed on them by the Adjudicating Authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973( Act, for short). 2. The allegation against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that they had purchased NRI cheques of Rs.12,21,057/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 2 from one Mr. Sanjiv Goel. It is alleged that these cheques were purchased after paying consideration of Rs.16,04,000/- and Rs.17,00,000/- lacs and the petitioners had violated provisions of Section 9 (1)(d) of the Act. It is also claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to protection granted under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 and Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is non-speaking and does not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioners. He has also drawn my attention to order dated 30th June, 1997 passed by Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and it is stated that in identical facts the penalty orders were quashed. This aspect has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to obtain instructions whether they are ready and willing to deposit part penalty amount and furnish security in the form of immovable property to protect the interest of the respondents and to ensure recovery of demand in case of an adverse order. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will deposit Rs.3 lacs with the respondents and furnish security of an immovable property to the satisfaction of the respondents. The aforesaid payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be made within a period of four weeks from today and security bond with papers will be furnished within four weeks. On payment being W.P. (C) No. 5284-85/2006 Page 3 deposited and security being furnished and accepted, the attachment orders issued by the Directorate of Enforcement in respect of bank accounts in State Bank of India, Mandavi branch, Mumbai, will be withdrawn. The respondents will be entitled to enforce and encash the security in case of an adverse order against the petitioner. 5. The petitioners will also file an affidavit giving details of their bank accounts and details of their others immovable property(ies). The said affidavit will be filed with the Directorate of Enforcement within four weeks. The impugned order dated 6th March, 2006 is modified in terms of the present order. The appeal filed by the petitioners will be disposed on merits after aforesaid payment is made and security is furnished. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal and the learned Tribunal will disposed of the appeal without being influenced by any observation made in this order. The writ petition is disposed of. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 27, 2009 VKR