Nemi Chand Jain @ Chandraswami v. Enforcement Directorate

ORDER 'h 2L09.2010 In this batch of appeals the challenge is to the order passed by the j --J 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' LPA 682/2010 & connected matters' For the sake of clarity and convenience, we would like to refer to the I 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 iacie 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 qf US$2 rnillion 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.

¶8Ai rightly pointed out, a self-serving affidavit of the Petitioner is not itself sufficient to substantiate financial hardship. This Court's decision inNeni Chsnd . fuin v. Enforcement Directoriate has been affirmed by t_-the Supreme Couft with the dismissal of the SLP." , j In our considered opinion, the reasoning ascribed by the learned Single Judge are absolutely impeccable and does not waryant interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. LPA 682/2010 & connected matters. Though we have declined to interfere, yet we are inclined to modiff I the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the app.ellant shall deposit the amount in each case by the end of November 2010 and on such deposit being made the'appellate authority shall proieed 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 I order as to costs. --' -/ SEPTEMBER 21,2010 'dk h,4 CHIEF JUSTICE t^ttJ MANMOffi,J ; LPA 682/2010 A connected matters.

* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +139. LPA 68212010 NEMI CI{AND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant .... Respondent . ' Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. H.C. Bhatia, Adv' .-,' 140. LPA 68312010 :t' VIKRAM SINGH APPe.llant ' Through Mr. I(.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Mi. Pramod Kharwar, Advs. ..... Respondgnt Through Mr. A'S' Chandhiok, ASG with I I "-J r4r. LPA 68412010 AMBASSADOR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv' with ! 'ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ""' Respondent . Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with LPA 682/2010 & connected matters' Page I of 6. I .t 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. I ,l ' r42. LPA 68512010 I NEMI CHANDRA JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant , Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod Kharwar. Advs. VETSUS .... Respondent Mr. H.C. Bhatia. Adv. r43. LPA 68612010 RC JAIN ..... APPellant VCTSUS r44. LPA 687120rtii CHANDRA SWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant . 'versus LPA 682/2010 & connected matters- l4s. LPA 688/2010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant ' VEI'SUS 146. LPA 689120tti NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant 147 . LPA 690120101 VIKRAM'SINGH "" APPellant rhrough ffi: 5;l;3,f,tfl1#i'iJ;ffi with I -:J LPA 682/2010 & connected matters. 148. LPA 69112010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant , rhrough ffi: 5;l;l,f,tfll,Ti'*frT with I 149. LPA 69212010 NEMI CHAN JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant i Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with versus ' CORAM: HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN