Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21848 (KAR)

PRAKASH KUMAR ISWARLAL v. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

MFA/5003/2014 · 2025-03-21

K V Aravind, Sreenivas Harish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:20846-DB MFA No.5003/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5003/2014 (FERA) BETWEEN: PRAKASH KUMAR ISWARLAL S/O B.ISWARLAL 9-6-372, DHANJIBHAI COMPOUND MUKHYAPRANA TEMPLE ROAD MANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY SRI P PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT) 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI -110 003 2. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE & COMPANY AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 15TH FLOOR HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE, K G MARG NEW DELHI -110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT, 1973 READ WITH SECTION 35 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2014 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, 15TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE, K.G.MARG, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.241/1995. Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:20846-DB MFA No.5003/2014 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 opposes adjournment. 2. The original proceedings in this case commenced in the year 1991. The order of the First Authority was passed in the year 1995. The Appellate Authority order was passed on 19.05.2014. It is submitted that the appellant has not even deposited the penalty imposed. 3. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant’s Counsel is not ready to proceed with the matter. Therefore prayer rejected and the appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs stood disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37