DUCK TARPAULIN LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is filed on 31. 5. 2000, the petitioners have challenged order in original dated 20. 5. 1998 passed by respondent No. 3-Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai imposing penalty of Rs. 11 lacs on petitioner No. 1-company and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were at the relevant time Directors of petitioner No. 1-company, in all five of its Directors out of whom two are petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) IT appears that though the petition was filed as far back as in May-2000, the matter was not moved for hearing. The matter is, thereafter, first listed on 26. 6. 2009 and is being adjourned from time to time.

(3.) MR. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, states that he has no instructions in the matter. In response to a query from the Court as to whether the respondents have already implemented and executed the impugned order in original by recovering fiscal penalty of Rs. 11 lacs, Mr. Shah is not in a position to submit any reply but states that petitioner No. 1-company was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. He makes such a statement on the basis of the communication dated 20. 1. 2000 (Annexure-J to the petition) and a copy of the minutes of the proceedings before the B. I. F. R. held on 1. 9. 1999 (Annexure-I to the petition ).