Madras High CourtWA/588/2024disposed of

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. The Adjudicating Authority,

2024-02-22Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.02.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer Sameer B.S. Rao Having Registered Office At Orchid (Block E), Ground To Fourth Floor Embassy Tech Village Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Appellant in Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

all W.As.

Vs.

1. The Adjudicating Authority Special Director (Sr.) Directorate Of Enforcement Southern Regional Office, Chennai Shastri Bhavan, III Floor, III Block 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, B Block, BMTC, Shanthinagar TTMC, KH Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru - 560 027.

3. The Joint Director Directorate Of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, B Block, BMTC Shanthinagar, TTMC, KH Road Respondents in Shanthinagar, Bengaluru - 560 027.

all W.As.

Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 23.01.2024 made in W.P.Nos.35660, 35664, 35668 and 35662 of 2023.

For the Appellant in all W.As.

: Mr.P.S.Raman,Senior Counsel Mr.Harpreet Singh Ajmani & Ms.Priyanka Shetty For Mr.P.Giridharan Mr.H.Siddarth For the Respondents in all W.As.

: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Special Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Ms.Priyanka Shetty, learned counsel for Mr.P.Giridharan and Mr.H.Siddarth, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. Notice was served upon the appellant under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 2000. The appellant sought for documents. The appellant was not supplied with four documents. In absence thereof, the matter proceeded till the stage of order under Rule 4(3). The opinion was formed by the authority. The appellant filed a review. The review was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petitions.

3. The learned Single Judge concluded that the principles of natural justice are violated as four documents relied on were not submitted to the appellant. The learned Single Judge directed to provide an opportunity to the present appellant for giving fresh explanation on receipt of the four documents. However, as far as the opinion that was already formed is concerned, the learned Single

Judge observed that the adjudicating authority may form a further opinion.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there cannot be two opinions on record. The earlier opinion formed has to be set aside. The very purpose of giving opportunity to the appellant to submit a fresh explanation would be frustrated if the adjudicating authority is guided by the earlier opinion.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the appellant was given inspection of the documents though four documents were not supplied. The explanation was received. The opinion was also formed. According to learned Additional Solicitor General, the adjudicating authority would form a fresh opinion.

6. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has observed that the principles of natural justice are violated in view of the fact that the documents were not supplied to the appellant,

though was given an opportunity to inspect and directed to give an opportunity to the appellant to file its explanation in view of the four documents supplied later on, naturally the opinion to be formed would be based on the explanation given by the appellant upon the supply of all the documents. As such, instead of further opinion to be formed by the officer, the adjudicating authority would form a fresh opinion based on the explanation submitted by the appellant upon receipt of the four additional documents. The said opinion shall be uninfluenced by the earlier opinion formed. The earlier opinion would be non-est.

7. The writ appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.4133, 4135 to 4137, 4139 to 4141 and 4144 of 2024 are closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 22.02.2024 Index : Yes/No kpl

1. The Adjudicating Authority Special Director (Sr.) Directorate Of Enforcement Southern Regional Office, Chennai Shastri Bhavan, III Floor, III Block 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, B Block, BMTC, Shanthinagar TTMC, KH Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru - 560 027.

3. The Joint Director Directorate Of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, B Block, BMTC Shanthinagar, TTMC, KH Road Shanthinagar, Bengaluru - 560 027.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(kpl) 22.02.2024