45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3953 OF 2026 The Indian Hotels Company Limited …Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. …Respondents ….. Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Gopal Shenoy, Mr. Jay Zaveri, Ms. Rhea Parkash, Mr. Suraj Agarwal i/b Crawford Bayley and Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil D. Yadav, for Respondent No.1- E.D. ….. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026 JUDGEMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Show Cause Notices bearing Nos. T-4/169-B/SDE (AKB)/2002 (SCN-I) and RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc T-4/169-B/SDE(AKB)/2002 (SCN-II) (at Exhibit C1 to C2), issued by the Respondents upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also seeking a consequential order that the amount deposited in furtherance of the order dated 3rd February 2025 issued by the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi be refunded. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FERA’) was repealed with effect from 1st June, 2000 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FEMA’) was brought into force replacing FERA. Section 49(3) of the FEMA provided that no Court and no Adjudicating Officer shall take notice of any contravention under Section 51 of FERA after the expiry of a period of 2 years from the date of commencement of FEMA. 5. The bone of contention of the Petitioner is that the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) came into effect on 1st June, 2000. The officer by the name- Shri. A.K. Bal issued two Show Cause Notices, which are impugned herein, on 31st May 2002. RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc 6. The contention of the Petitioner is that after the FEMA came into effect, the officer- Mr. A.K. Bal did not have jurisdiction to issue the notices. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the date of repeal of FERA, the officer was not an Adjudicating Officer and that after the FERA stood repealed from 1st June 2000, the Show Cause Notices could not have been issued. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. R.M. Ramchandani & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11771]. He also relied upon the judgment in the matter of The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. passed by this Court on 17th June 2026 in Writ Petition No.389 of 2026. He contended that both the Division Benches of this Court have taken a similar view. 8. As far as the issue of pendency of the appeal is concerned, he contended that the pendency of appeal could not come into his way because the Show Cause Notices were issued without jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Godrej RaJesh Chittewan, PS 3/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 95] contending that there is a difference between maintainability and entertainability. He, further relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. [2026 SCC OnLine SC 517], contended that where Show Cause Notice suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind or amounts to abuse of process of law, the court would be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement on the other hand contended that, the action taken by the officer is within the jurisdiction. He contended that the petition is not maintainable in light of the fact that the Petitioner has challenged the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and that the same is pending. He submitted that as the Appellate Authority is seized with the matter and that the Petitioner has also obtained an interim order dated 3rd February, 2025 by depositing 10% of the penalty as a pre-deposit. The Petitioner having complied with the RaJesh Chittewan, PS 4/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc order dated 3rd February, 2025, the present petition is not maintainable. He contended that the Show Cause Notices were issued on 31st May, 2002 and the proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period. Ultimately, the adjudication pursuant to the Show Cause Notices commenced and it culminated into common Adjudication Order dated 13th March, 2019. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. We have perused the documents on record. 11. This Court in The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra) has considered the effect of issuance of the Show Cause Notice after the repeal of FERA. This Court has considered in detail the judgments of the co-ordinate benches of this Court. In First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) identical challenge was raised to the Show Cause Notices issued by the very same officer- Mr. A.K. Bal under the provisions of FERA. The Co-ordinate Bench upon interpretation of Section 50 of the FERA, and Repeal and saving RaJesh Chittewan, PS 5/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc provisions contained in Section 49 of the FEMA held that, Mr. A.K. Bal was not specially empowered to act as an Adjudicating Officer under FERA, and consequently, he lacked authority to issue the Show Cause Notice thereunder after the repeal of the enactment. The Division Bench of this Court concluded that the Show Cause Notices were issued without jurisdiction. 12. The judgments in the matter of First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra) are squarely applicable in the case in hand. Hence, we conclude that the impugned Show Cause Notices are without jurisdiction and that they deserve to be quashed and set aside. Once we have held that the Show Cause Notices in question are without jurisdiction then the consequences must follow. The Show Cause Notices impugned herein are quashed and set aside. The present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under: “(a) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings relating to the said Show Cause Notices bearing nos. T-4/169-B/SDE(AKB)/2002 (SCN-I) and RaJesh Chittewan, PS 6/7 45. WP 3953-2026(1).doc T-4/169-B/SDE(AKB)/2002 (SCN-II) (at Exhibit C1 to C2 hereto) issued by Respondents upon the Petitioner, and after examining the legality and validity of thereof, to quash and set aside the same and all consequential orders and steps taken thereon and direct the refund of the amount deposited in furtherance of order dated 3rd February 2025 issued by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi with the Respondent No. 1;” 14. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 15. The Writ Petition No.3953 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.) RaJesh Chittewan, PS 7/7 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.09.23 15:46:13 +0530