Vikram Singh v. Enforcement Directorate

ORDER o

21.09.2010 'In this batch of appeals the challenge is to the order passed by the leamed 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. LPA 682/2010 & connected matters. \- .lf 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 pf 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 million and 3 million respectively outside India which were then credited by Mr. Adnan Khashoggi in his account. The recovery of the attestation certificate also prima facie establishes the case of the Respondents.

¶8As rightly pointed out, a self-serving affidavit of the Petitioner is not itself sufficient to substantiate financial hardship. This Court's decision in Nemi Chand rain v. Enforcement Directorate has been affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLP'" In our considered opinion, the reasoning ascribed by the learned Single Judge are absolutely impeccable and does not warrant interferehce in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent' LPA 682/2010 & conn,ected tnatters' Though we have declined to interfere, yet we are inclined to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall deposit the amount in each case by the end of November 2010 and on such deposit being made the appellate authority shall proceed to hear the appeal and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months. With the aforesaid'modification, the appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. SEPTEMBER 21,2010 dk LPA 682/2010 & connected rnatters. /*-r4 7t t' CHIEF JUSTICE ,ln l|-JL MANMOffi,J ,J

r.l * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +139. LPA 68212010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant VCTSUS ..... R.tpondent rhrough ffi: fi:3,gi1t1l*iSG with -i 140. LPA 68312010 r .ej,l VIKRAM SINGH ..... APPellant : Mr. Pramod Kharwar. Advs. . M1. H.C. Bhatia, Adv. r4r. LPA 68412010 AMBASSADOR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv: with . Respondent LPA 682/2010 & connected matters. 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. r42. LPA 68s12010 NEMI CHANDRA JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant r43. LPA 68612010 -:-.' RC JAIN _r,L-^.-^L \r_ ""' Appellant VCTSUS ' Mr. H.C. Bhatia. Adv. --J r44. LPA 68712010 , CHANDRA SWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant 'Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prarnod Kharwar, Advs. LPA 682/2010 & connected matters' 14s. LPA 688/2010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Through , Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Respondent hrough ffi: fi:3. B[lt#i5;iSGwith . 146. LPA 68912010 . -) NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI . APPEI1ANI Mr. Pramod Khaqwar, Advs. ENFORCBUBNT DIRECTORATE Respondent Through IvIr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. H.C. Bhatia. Adv. r47. LPA 690120tti VIKRAM SINGFi ..... APPellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv' with ; Mr. H C Bhatia, Adv. LPA 682/2010 A connected matters. 148. LPA 69112010 i\TEN4i CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant .....Rgrpondent r49. LPA 69212010 --/ NEMI CHAN JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant ' ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with' CORAM, , MT. H.C. BhAtiA, AdV. , HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE "MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN