Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. Balaji Distilleries Limited has filed Appeal No. 189 of 2009 against paragraph No. 2.7.6(i) and (ii) of the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) in case Nos. 103 of 2004 and 315 of 2004. Vide its impugned directions, the BIFR has declared the allotment of warrants for Rs. 124.02 crores to Vicki Investments and Properties (P) Ltd. (VIPPL), Hiwide Enterprises (P) Ltd (HEPL) and Mighty Agrotech (India) Limited (MATIL) on 20.12.2007 and its subsequent conversion into equity on 15.6.2009 as null and void and by another direction the BIFR has directed the appellant company to submit an alternate draft rehabilitation scheme to the IDBI (operating agency) without involving any change of management. Against this order, the appellant company as well as VIPPL (Appeal No. 193 of 2009), HEPL (Appeal No. 187 of 2009) and MATIL (Appeal No. 196 of 2009) hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by Groupe of Chimique Tunisien (GCT) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company) against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') dated 2.9.2008 whereby the BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme (SS-08) for Paradeep Phosphates Limited, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent company'). The appellant company is an unsecured creditor who is aggrieved by paragraph 18 of the sanctioned scheme which provides for payment of 30% of the principal outstanding dues of non-current unsecured creditors as against 89% paid to current unsecured creditor i.e. OCP, Morocco. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant company was declared sick at the hearing held on 20.7.2005 and State Bank of India.(SBI) was appointed as the operating agency (OA) under section 17(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') to exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal filed by S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company) is directed against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) dated 17-1-2006 whereby the BIFR rejected the reference of the appellant company on the ground that the appellant company was not an industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(e) read with section 3(1)(f) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA) and the company, therefore, does not fall under the definition of the sick industrial company in terms of section 3(1)(o) of SICA. 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated in the State of Tamil Nadu on 12-10-1990 and was engaged in the manufacture of edible oil refining, oil seed processing, shrimp farming, etc. The appellant company commenced commercial production on 5-9-1991 and, on account of technical ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. Heard on MA No. 258 of 2008. Appellant has filed MA No. 258 of 2008 for directions to the GSFC to restrain from taking possession of the machinery, Atomiser supplied by Silmet Ltd., Israel, in pursuance of the notice/letter dated 15-7-2008. 2. On this application, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have heard Shri Vivek Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. It is submitted by Shri Sibal that, on 5-3-1998, GSFC and the applicant company executed a hire purchase agreement for the Atomiser and GSFC had sanctioned financial assistance of Rs. 150 lakhs to the applicant company for acquisition of machinery, i.e. Atomizer, to be supplied by Silmet Ltd., Israel, at a total cost of Rs. 182 lakhs. The applicant company has been utilizing the machinery covered under the said agreement. The applicant has paid Rs. 75.14 lakhs to GSFC against the hire purchase agreement dated 5-3-1998 and is unable to pay the balance amount to GSFC, though the company is still inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
R.N. Poddar, Member. - These appeals are directed against common adjudication order SDE/PKA/ADJ/181-184/B/98, dated 14-12-1998 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement emanated front 4 SCNs all dated 8-11-1996 imposing total penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs [Rs. 12 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and Rs. 8 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973] on each of the appellants in appeal Nos. 50 and 51 of 1999 i.e., Chandanmal C. Jain (Chandanmal) and Babulal Jain (Babulal) respectively besides separate total penalty of Rs. 90 lakhs [Rs. 45 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(b), Rs. 30 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(d) and Rs. 15 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FER Act, 1973] on each of the appellant i.e., appellant Nos. 52, 53 and 54 of 1999 Bhavarlal Jain (Bhavarlal) and Pravin Jain (Pravin) and Ashok K. Jugraj Jain (Ashok) respectively. The impugned adjudication order is emanated from 4 SCNs T-4/77/B/96 (SCN I), T-4/78/B/9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. 2. This appeal has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/19 and 20/DD/SLH/A/2000, dated 27-11-2000 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,74,500 (Rupees three lakhs seventy four thousand five hundred only) against the appellant, for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 for having received Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 10,48,836 and for having made payment of Rs. 37,45,163 in India on instructions of a person resident outside India without the permission of the RBI. The appellant has pre-deposited Rs. 1 lakh in compliance of the order of the Honble High Court dated 18-10-2007 where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Kiran R. Soni who argued on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, on behalf of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. By these two revision petitions, the Enforcement Directorate has sought this Tribunal under Section 52(4) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, to examine legality, propriety and correctness of the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/90 to 96/B/SDE/PKA/2000 dated 11th May, 2000, passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, whereby allegations of contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) r/w Sections 64(2), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 8(1) r/w Section 9(1)(f)(i) FER Act, 1973, are dropped against the respondents even when the respondents admittedly worked us clearing agent of the alleged over-invoiced imported books by different firms or proprietorship concerns which are purportedly managed by one Naresh T. Mehra, who had been proprietor of M/s. Brooks International. It is contended that despite admissional statement of respondent Mahendra M. Ruparel regarding nor importing goods of the kind ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. These two appeals are filed against adjudication order No. 105/99/AD, dated 23-8-1999 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 against the appellant company and Rs. 2,000 against another appellant as director of the company for contravention of section 4(1) read with section 23C(1) of FER Act, 1947 when S.S. Kothari was functioning as Director of appellant-company so was incharge and responsible to the company on the reasons that appellants unauthorisedly acquired foreign currency of DM 47,500 which was paid to M/s. A. Knoevenagal West Germany by M/s. Kaiser Engineers International USA on appellants behalf. 3. According to learned counsel, the appellants have made their pre-deposit of their respective penalty and these appeals are required to be heard on merits. We have heard arguments from Ms. Nupur Mukherjee, Advocate on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1and 2. These appeals with identical facts are filed against following two adjudication orders as recorded below : (1) Appeal No. 228/06 and appeal No. 230/06 - against Adjudication Order No. SDE/SKP/III/12/2006, dated 4-4-2006 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs each) on Shekhar Goel (the individual appellant) for contravention of sections 8(1) 9(1)(a), 8(1) read with section 64(2) of FER Act, 1973 respectively and total penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs + Rs. 5 lakhs) on M/s. American Express Bank Ltd. (the appellant bank) for contravention of sections 6(4) and 6(5) read with sections 73(3), 49 of FER Act, 1973 and also refer para 29B, 8(c) of ECM 1987 and section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973 respectively besides imposing separate penalties on other co-noticees who are not parties in any of these appeals. (2) Appeal No. 531/05 against Adjudication Order No. Adj/142/DZ/ 2004/AD(SMB), dated 28-2-2005 passed by Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No.ADJ/260 to 263/AD(DK)B/94, dated 7-4-1994 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the appellant besides separate penalties on co noticees for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This Tribunal has received a letter dated 24-7-2008 from Haresh Mehta and Co. stating that the appellant has already paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,000 and requesting this Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal. In other words, the appellant does not want to be present or being represented for personal hearing. Accordingly, the appeal papers have been taken up for consideration. 4. Heard Shri AC. Singh, DLA for the respondent and perused the appeal record. The main cr...
Tag this Judgment!