Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.J. JOSEPH versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.J. JOSEPH v. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE - WP(C) No. 23368 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 14556 (31 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23368 of 2007(F)

1. K.J. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHERTHALAI.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :31/07/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN,J


================
W.P.(C).No.23368 of 2007
======================

Dated this the 31st day of July 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard parties. The petitioner's grievance is that without issuing final order in Appeal No.603/2005 to the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 are seeking to recover amount disputed in the appeal, by issuing Ext.P5 recovery proceedings. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs.

"i) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent Tribunal to supply final order in Appeal No.603 of 2005 to the petitioner or his counsel forthwith; ii) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to proceed with Ext.P5 recovery proceedings till the period prescribed under Section 35 of the FEMA, 1999 for filing appeal against the order of Ist respondent Tribunal before this Honourable Court; iii)stay Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings pending disposal of this writ petition." I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to get a copy of the order in W.P.(C).No.23368/2007 Appeal No.603/2005 if it has not already been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, there would be a direction to the first respondent to issue a certified copy of the order in Appeal No.603/2005 to the petitioner or his counsel expeditiously. However, this would be subject to the contention of the respondents that an order has already been issued, if it has actually been so issued earlier. Till certified copy of the order is issued to the petitioner and 7 days thereafter further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to workout his remedies against that order. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

dvs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.