KIRTI TRAMBAKLAL SHAH Vs. COLLECTOR OF MUMBAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith. Pursuant to the order of this Court, which is dated 8th August, 2005, an officer from the Registrar of Companies, Mrs. V. S. Hajare, Senior Technical assistant, has remained present in the Court with the record. From the original record, we find that Form No. 32 had been filed in the office of the registrar on 20th August, 1999. A change was recorded on 15th November, 1999. With the above, the petition may now be considered as disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner approached this Court pursuant to a demand dated 4th march, 2005 made on the petitioner by respondent No. 1 under section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 90,00,002/- in satisfaction of the penalty of Rs. 90,00,000/ -. Subsequent to the demand, on behalf of the petitioner, correspondence was exchanged with respondent No. 1. On 13th June, 2005, the petitioner received a copy of a letter dated 13th June, 2005 addressed by the Joint Director general of Foreign Trade, Mumbai to the District Collector, requesting him to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance upto 13th August, 2005, in view of the pendency of the appeal filed by the company. On 18th July, 2005, it is case of the petitioner that the Revenue Inspector from the office of the collector of Mumbai, visited the residence of the petitioner and threatened to attach and seal the residence flat. Consequent to that, the present petition. The demand on the petition arises from the order dated 29th November, 2004 passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade against the company and its Directors for non-fulfillment of export obligation, duty exemption availed on excess imports and interest thereon.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the said demand is based on the licence issued to the petitioner on 5th May, 2000 on which date, it is the contention of the petitioner that he has ceased to be a Director and consequently, the order dated 29th November, 2004 could not be the basis to attach his property.