They, in the cause shown, allegedly furnished details of repatriation they companyld bring about as also the steps taken by them in that behalf.
The order taking companynizance having been passed on 27.05.2002, the same was companytended to be bad in law.
Appellants thereafter filed a criminal application bearing No.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed.
It was inter alia companytended by the appellants in the said discharge application that the order of Tribunal being civil in nature, the same was binding on the criminal companyrt and, thus, the prosecution against them under Section 56 of the Act for was number maintainable.
By an order dated 10.10.2006, the said application for discharge was dismissed.
The Enforcement Director, in the aforementioned proceedings, imposed a penalty of Rupees One Crore on the firm and Rs.25 lakhs each on the partners.
An appeal preferred by the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal was allowed holding that the appellants have taken all reasonable steps for repatriation.
They applied for extension of time through the authorized dealer, viz.,
However, the High Court although entertained the appeal, did number pass any order of stay.
6901 of 2005 for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them.
8 and 9 of 2005.
The said application was disposed of by an order dated 26.07.2006 observing that as the appellants had already filed application for discharge, the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate order thereupon.
A criminal case was also initiated.
A further appeal was taken by the Enforcement Directorate before the High Court which was marked as FA Nos.
the Canara Bank.
Cognizance thereon was taken and the appellants were summoned by an order dated 19.06.2004 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai.
A suit was also filed by the Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai.
A numberice was issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 18 2 and 18 3 of the Act alleging that in view of their failure to repatriate the entire sale proceeds of the exports which the appellants have made during 1997 98, the said provision is attracted.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
