Chandra Swami @ Nemi Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate

ORDER oh 2L.09.20L0 In this batch of appeals the challenge is to the order passed by the t'a 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' 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 million and 3 million respectively outside India which were then credited by Mr. Adnan Khashoggi in his acpount. 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 Chsntl Jain v. Enforcenrcnt Directorute 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 interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent' { /o Though we have declined to interfere, yet we are inclined to modi$ ' the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall I deposit the amount in each case by the end of November 2010 and on such deposit being made'the appellate authority shatl proceed to hear the appeal and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible, preierably, withih a I period of three months.' With the aforesaid modification, the appeals are disposed of. No. -J order as to costs. SEPTEMBER 2I,2OIO dk hr4 CHIEF JUSTICE I tt J MANMOH-, J LPA 682/2010 & connected tnatters.'

*INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI -f I 3 9.' LPA 68212010 versus Mr' Pramod Kharwar' Advs' 140. LPA 68312010 . VIKRAM. SINGH "" APPellant rhrough ffi: Li;3,f,tfll,lii'*frT with . versus Respondent Mr. H'C' Bhatia, Adv' 141: LPA 68412010 AMBASSADOIT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv' with ' . Page I of 6 .l 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. t42. LPA 68s120rti NEMI CHANDRA JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant vi:rsus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOpA1B r43. LPA 68612010 r Mr. K.P. Danoo""i'i;.Tf.i]trt ,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE r44. LPA 68712010 CHANDRA SWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant versus LPA 682/2010 & connected ntatters' I I4s. tfo 688/2010 Mr. Sahtosh Chaurihaa aqrd Mr. Pramod Kharwar, AdvS' I , Mr. H.C' Bhatia, Adv' 146: LPA 68912010 -1ts Through Mr' K'P' pandpani, Sr' Adv' with 'Mr. Pramod Kharwar, Advs. . Mr. H.C. Bhatia, Adv' r47 . LPA 69012010,,' VIKRAM SINGH ""' APPellant Through Mr' I('P' Dandpani' Sr' Adv' with , versus ' Mr"Pramod Kharwar' Advs' -a : .Mr. H'C' Bhatia, Adv' 'LPA 682/2010 & connectedmatters' \ 148. LPA 69112010 r49. LPA 69212010 NEMI CHAN JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI .'.... Appellant CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN