Ambassador Constructions Pvt Ltd v. Enforcement Directorate

ORDER o/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 eirtertain the application seeking waiver of Pre-dePosit. LPA 682/2010 & connectecl matters. -'-J 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 zubmissions, is of the view that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a prirna facie case for complete waiver-of the pre-dbposit 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 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 rn Nemi Chand Jain v. Enforcentent Directorste ,has been affirmed by the Supreme Coutt with the dismissal of the SLP." In our considered opinion, the reasoning ascribed by the learned Single Judge are absolutely impeccable and does not wan:ant 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 modi$r the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall deposit the amount in eagh 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 J ../" order as to costs. I \.J SEPTEMBER 2r,2010 dk LPA 682/2010 & connected motters. .h"4 CHIEF JUSTICE MANMOIIAIN,.I

* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -rl39.LPA 682120tti NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant , Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with . Mr. Pramod Kharwar,'Advs. VETSUS ENFORCEMENT ?ffilo\H^S. chandhiok, ASG with j 140. LPA 68312010 VIKRAM SINGH "" APPellant ' ' Through Mr. I(.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod I(harwar, Advs. .... Respondent . r Mr. H.C. Bhatia, AdY. r4r. LPA 68412010 t, AMB AS S AD olt tS#ffittt}?l[JHlffi*, r, ;;Tfl;"'* .:.. 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 68s120rti NEMI CHANDRA JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Mr. Pramod Kharwar. Advs. VETSUS r43. LPA 68612010 RC JAIN ..... Appellant ' Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with VETSUS Mr. Pramod Kharwar. Advs. r44. LPA 68712010' CHANDRA SWAMI @NEMI CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant Through i\[r. K.P. Dandpani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prarnod Kharwar. Advs. VETSUS ENF ORCEMENT DIRECTORATE LPA 682/2010 & connected rnatters. Pos: 2 of 6 145 LPA 688/2010 NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CFIANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant . Respondent . 146. LPA 68912010 '; NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandparii, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod Kharwar. Advs. versus. ' r47. LPA 69012010, ,apuni,'sr.Tff]fft Mr. Primod Kharwar, Adv1. LPA 682/2010 & connected ritatters. 148. LPA 69112010 ' NEMI CHAND JAIN @ CHANDRASWAMI ..... Appellant Mr' Pramod Kharwar' Advs' ' r4g. LPA 69212010 'i NEMI CHAN JAIN @ CHANDMSWAMI ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.P. Dandpani,'Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.C. Bhatia. Adv, CORAM: HONiBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN