APHC010004942015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2015 Between: 1. MR V. RAO BATHINA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. BATHINA TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD., FLAT NO.303, SHRI LAKSHMI PLAZA APARTMENTS, MIG-24, LAWSON BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 6th FLOOR, LOKNAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C V NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO ( SC FOR E D ) The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J CMSA.No.8 of 2015 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2015 J U D G M E N T: Heard Ms. Y. Siri Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for appellant, and Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent. 2. The present civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the order dated 16.04.2015 passed in Appeal No.101 of 2011 on the file of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange at New Delhi. 3. Initially, an Order of Adjudication dated 28.06.2011 came to be passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, holding the company - M/s. Bathina Technologies (India) Limited as well as the Chairman & Managing Director of the said company, Mr. V. Rao Bathina (the appellant herein), guilty of contravention of Sections 7(2) and 8 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1973, read with Regulations 8, 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2000, and consequently, imposing a penalty of Rs.5.00 crores on the company and Rs.1.00 crore on the appellant. Challenging the same, the company and the appellant preferred two separate appeals viz., Appeal Nos.100 of 2011 and 101 of 2011, before the Appellate Tribunal. Pending appeals, applications seeking 3 CGR,J CMSA.No.8 of 2015 stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty were also moved before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, while disposing of the said applications by the impugned common order, directed the appellants therein to deposit 10% of the penalty imposed against each of them and also to furnish bank guarantee for the balance 90% amount. The said common order came to be assailed by the company in C.M.S.A.No.7 of 2015 and by the Chairman & Managing Director/ appellant herein in the present C.M.S.A. 4. Ms. Y. Siri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant, submits that C.M.S.A.No.7 of 2015 filed by the company has been allowed by this Court by order dated 07.05.2025, and takes this Court through the said order dated 07.05.2025, which was filed along with Memo dated 21.07.2025. Operative portion of the said order reads as under: “..Since it is a fit case to dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. But, to safeguard realization of the amount of penalty, the appellant shall execute an undertaking before the appellate authority that the amount of penalty would be paid in the event of confirmation of penalty by the appellate authority within eight (8) weeks from such order, however, subject to other legal remedies available against such order. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 5. As this Court has already expressed its opinion on the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount in the aforesaid order, 4 CGR,J CMSA.No.8 of 2015 it is prayed that the present appeal may also be disposed of in same terms. 6. Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent, does not refute the aforesaid submissions. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order being a common order and as C.M.S.A.No.7 of 2015 filed by the company, assailing the said common order, has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025, the present appeal also deserves to be allowed in same terms. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. However, to safeguard realization of the amount of penalty, the appellant is directed to execute an undertaking before the appellate authority that the amount of penalty would be paid in the event of confirmation of penalty by the appellate authority in the process of adjudication of appeal, within eight weeks from such order, however, subject to other legal remedies available against such order. 9. The civil miscellaneous second appeal stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 01.08.2025 IBL 5 CGR,J CMSA.No.8 of 2015 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2015 Dt: 01.08.2025 IBL