Wp(C)/6540/2017 Of Dr. Mathew Kuruvila @ Thanku Brother v. Teh Director (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-V)
High Court
02 Mar 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6540/2017 Of Dr. Mathew Kuruvila @ Thanku Brother v. Teh Director (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-V)
Date of order
02 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/6540/2017 Of Dr. Mathew Kuruvila @ Thanku Brother v. Teh Director (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-V), the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Decision: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6540 of 2017 (N) ---------------------------
PETITIONER:----------
DR. MATHEW KURUVILA @ THANKU BROTHER,
H.NO.362, WARD NO.XXVII, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THE DIRECTOR (APPEALS) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(APPEALS-V) MAIN BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NO.222, 121 MG ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-34.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, GOVT. OF INDIA, 1ST FLOOR, MAINKANDAN BUILDING, ALAPPAT EXTENTION ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN, PIN-682 106.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT (PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT) GOVT, OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, COCHIN ZONE, KANOOS CASTLE, MULASSERY CANAL ROAD, COCHIN, PIN-682 001.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD(AZ)/01/KCZO/2014/66 DATED 1-1-2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 1-1-2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6-2-2014. PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6-2-2014.
P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-2-2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V.
P.A.TO JUDGE
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 6540 OF 2017
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 02[nd] day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The second respondent initiated proceedings againstthe petitioner under the Foreign Exchange ManagementAct, 1999, which finally culminated in Ext. P1 adjudicationorder. Aggrieved, petitioner has submitted Ext. P2 appealand stay application which are pending consideration beforethe appellate authority, namely the first respondent. Duringthe pendency of the appeal and stay application, nowExt. P3 proceedings are initiated by the respondents underSection 14 of the FEMA Act, 1999 asking the petitioner toshow cause why he shall not be arrested and committed tocivil prison in the execution of the said certificate. It is thuschallenging Ext. P3, this writ petition is filed.
2.Having heard learned counsel for the petitionerand learned Central Government Counsel, I am of theconsidered opinion that first respondent can be directed totake a decision on the stay application submitted by the
W.P.(C). NO. 6540 OF 2017
2
petitioner. Learned Central Government Counsel submitsthat the appeal is posted on 16.03.2017.
3.Therefore, there will be a direction to thepetitioner to appear before the first respondent on16.03.2017, on which date or any subsequent date, the stayapplication shall be considered by the first respondent andtill such time orders are passed proceedings pursuant toExt. P3 will stand stayed. The first respondent will also beat liberty to explore the possibility of disposing of theappeal itself after providing sufficient opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
DCS
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.