Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and ors.

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and anr. vs Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 14, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/696029

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/696029
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: M.C. Jain, C.J. and; Arun Kumar, J.
Decided On: Mar 14, 1991
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 190 of 1991
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: FERA
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1974 - Sections 61

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and anr.

Advocate T.R. Andhiyarujina,; R. Gagrat,; U.A. Rana and;

Respondent

Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1974 - Sections 61
Reported In: 44(1991)DLT209

Excerpt

- .....rule d.b. (2) this petition is directed against the opportunity notices, annexures 't', 'u', 'v', 'w' dated 28th november, 1990, and a threatened action on the part of the respondents to launch prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under section 61 of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973. the apprehension of the petitioner is that in the adjudication proceedings, it has been found by respondent no. 1 that there was no permission available with the petitioner and against the adjudication order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the f.e.r.a. board. having recorded the findings in the adjudication proceedings. opportunity notices in terms of proviso to section 61(2) have been given to the petitioner. according to the petitioner, serving of opportunity notices is only an empty formality and prosecution is imminent under section 61(2)(ii) and complaint in writing is likely to be made by the directorate of enforcement, it may be stated that opportunity notices have not yet been disposed of and no decision has been taken on the opportunity notices served on the petitioner. we cannot foresee the outcome of the opportunity notices. it may be that the stage of cognizance of offence may not arise. even if it arises, it would be proper that the petitioner's interest may be safeguarded by granting time to the petitioner to avail appropriate opportunity before making of any complaint in writing by the directorate of enforcement. the petitioner's interest in such a manner can be safeguarded before any prosecution is launched against the petitioner. (3) accordingly, we direct that no complaint in writing would be made against the petitioner by the directorate of enforcement for a period of two months in case the result of the opportunity notices is that the petitioner is to be prosecuted. we also hope that the f.e.r.a. board will decide the appeal within a period of two months so that the view of the f.e.r a. board may also be known to the.....

Full Judgment

M.C. Jain, C.J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) This petition is directed against the Opportunity Notices, Annexures 'T', 'U', 'V', 'W' dated 28th November, 1990, and a threatened action on the part of the respondents to launch prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under Section 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the adjudication proceedings, it has been found by respondent no. 1 that there was no permission available with the petitioner and against the adjudication order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the F.E.R.A. Board. Having recorded the findings in the adjudication proceedings. Opportunity Notices in terms of proviso to Section 61(2) have been given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, serving of Opportunity Notices is only an empty formality and prosecution is imminent under Section 61(2)(ii) and complaint in writing is likely to be made by the Directorate of Enforcement, It may be stated that Opportunity Notices have not yet been disposed of and no decision has been taken on the Opportunity Notices served on the petitioner. We cannot foresee the outcome of the opportunity notices. It may be that the stage of cognizance of offence may not arise. Even if it arises, it would be proper that the petitioner's interest may be safeguarded by granting time to the petitioner to avail appropriate opportunity before making of any complaint in writing by the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner's interest in such a manner can be safeguarded before any prosecution is launched against the petitioner.

(3) Accordingly, we direct that no complaint in writing would be made against the petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement for a period of two months in case the result of the Opportunity Notices is that the petitioner is to be prosecuted. We also hope that the F.E.R.A. Board will decide the appeal within a period of two months so that the view of the F.E.R A. Board may also be known to the prosecuting authorities. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1991 Same Parties Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and anr. vs Assistant Director, E... Same Subject FERA Same Judge M.C. Jain, C.J. and; Arun Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Foreign Exchange Regulat...

FERA