Nemi Chand Jain @ Chandraswami v. Enforcement Directorate

*INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI -r-139. LPA 682/2010 NEMI CIIAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI .....App"llant ' , versus ENF ORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

¶140LPA 68312010 VIKRAM SINGH Through T4T. LPA 68412010 I . VCTSUS ENF ORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, , Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. H.C. Bhatia, Adv.' ..... Appellant Mr. I(.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with -II AMBASSADOIT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through' Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv' with Mr. Sairtosh Chaurihaa and Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advs' Page I of 6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. L r42. LPA 68s120rti NEMI.HANDRA;fiT8""#)''ff ilY*Hi'i,Sroi;3ff "*' . .... Respondent r43. LPA 68612010 --.' RC JAIN .... APPellant . r44. LPA 6871,2010 CHANDRA SWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr' Adv' with VEISUS -.-\ ; I a r45. LPA 688/2010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Through IVIr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr' Adv' with versus ""' Respondent t46. LPA 68912010 NEMICHANDtoil,g"!#^\ilHi;Yfi ffi tani,sro;;T"Ttt*' ENF.RCEMENT ?ff;I"\ffo, chandhi"o; ;ffi'*?#"* r47. LPA 69012010, VIKRAM SINGH "" APPellant Through ' Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr' Adv' with Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advs' versus "" Respondent Through Mr. A.S' Chandhiok, ASG with ' LPA 682/2010 & connected matters' j ' . _4_ _! -' ---\-

¶148LPA 69112010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant . Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advs. versus. . Mr. H.C. Bhatia, Adv' t49. LPA 6921201',0 NEMI CHAN JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Mr. Santosh Chaurihiia and ' Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advs. , -ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ""' Respondent CORAM: ' HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN .^ 9#, tn this batch of appeals the challenge is to the order passed by the I learned Single Judge in the writ petitions whereby he has given a stamp of . approval to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (tribunal) whereby the tribunal has declined to entertain the application seeking waiver of Pre-dePosit' I I { For the sake of clarity and convenience, we would like to refer to the order passed in WP(C) No.2643l2007. In the said case, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: ' "'7. This Court on considering the above submissions, is of the view that the Petitioner has not been able to ' make out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the ' pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The evidence discussed by the special Director in the adjudication order does show that the Petitioner did receive the.two drafts of US$2 rnillion and 3 milljon respectively outside India which were then credited by Mr. Adnan Khashoggi ' in his account. The recovery of the attestation certificate ' also prirna facie establishes the case of the Respondents. As rightly pointed out, a self-serving affidavit of the Petitioner is not itself sufficient to substantiate financial hardship. This Court's decisionin Nemi Chand .t fain v. Enforcehrcnt Directorate has been affirmed by the Supreme Court with the disrnissal of the SLP'" In our considered opinion, the reasoning ascribed by the learned Single Judge are absolutely impeccable and does not wanant interference in exercise of the appelfate jurisdiction under clause 10 of the Letters Patent' Though we have declined to interfere, yet we are inclined to modify the orddr of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall deposit the amount in each case by the end of November.20lO and on such eposit being made the appellate authority shall proceed to hear'the appeal and dispose the saple as expeditiously as possible, freferably, within a period of three months. With the aforesaid modification, the appeals are disposed of. No / order as to costs. /rr-n4 t-CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 21,20tti dk I LPA 682/20. 0 & connected matters. , I .t