当事人不得就同一命令同时采取两种救济途径。

Held by Appellant Tribunal under SAFEMA 

In the matter of 

Shri KeshavBangur  Vs The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi (FPA-FE-460/DLI/2005) order dated 06.03.2024

The Appellant filed an appeal before the SEFEMA against the impugned order wherein a penalty of INR 50 Lakhs was imposed on the Appellant for violation of provisions of FEMA. After filing appeal, the Appellant kept on seeking adjournment from the Tribunal and filed the writ Petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta. While filing writ petition, the appellant suppressed the fact of pendency of appeal. Hon’ble High Court rejected the contention of the Appellant and upheld the impugned order. The High Court mentioned The impugned order is appealable.  The petitioner has chosen not to prefer an appeal. The Petitioner chose to file the writ petition.

Hon’ble Tribunal held that A party cannot take two remedies simultaneously against one and same order and that too in a litigation between the same parties.  The Appellant has raised all the issues before Hon’ble High Court and finding no merit, the writ petition was dismissed.  The appellant was having an opportunity to raise all the issues before the High Court. Now the appellant is precluded from raising the same before the Tribunal by constructive res judicata now. The Appellant should be governed by the judgment of the High Court and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. If simultaneous remedy is allowed, there can be a serious consequence of the conflicting order which needs to be avoided and to give sanctity to the order passed at the first instance.

Read Also: All about Form FC-TRS   

1. 案情简介

• 针对执法局特别局长因违反《1999年外汇管理法》（FEMA, 1999）相关规定而处以 500 万卢比罚款的涉案命令，上诉人向 SAFEMA 下属的上诉法庭提起上诉。
• 此前，法庭还下达了免除预缴保证金的命令。
• 提起上诉后，上诉人请求在第一轮审理中延期，法庭予以准许。在第二轮审理中，上诉人再次申请延期，法庭再次准许，此过程持续了一年之久。
• 在此期间，上诉人向加尔各答高等法院提起令状诉讼，并隐瞒了该事项上诉案件尚在审理中的事实。

2. Judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

The Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta is as follows:

• 申请人主张，涉案命令因违反自然公正原则而失效。
• 申请人未获得陈述案件的合理机会。听证通知未送达本人。在涉案命令下达前，其未获得申辩机会。
• 申请人当时身体不适，处于持续住院状态。
• 尊敬的高等法院裁定，申请人完全知晓诉讼程序正在进行，却仍试图以医疗理由作为借口。
• 相关文件不支持申请人的主张。申请人知晓诉讼程序，但选择不参与。
• 涉案命令是可以上诉的，且已说明理由。申请人选择不提起上诉。
• 申请人选择了提起令状诉讼。
• 在本案的事实和情况下，关于违反自然公正原则的主张不予采纳。

Accordingly, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta was unaware of the fact that the Petitioner has already filed an appeal in the same matter. 

Read Also: Appeal with appellate Authority under GST

The High Court heard the matter independently and held that the contention of the petitioner was not acceptable and therefore, it was held that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 

3. Contention of the Respondent

The respondent contended that:

• 上诉人已就其在高等法院辩论的问题推进了令状诉讼，因此这些问题不能再在 SEFEMA 面前提出。
• 相反，根据推定禁止反言原则，如果上诉人在提起令状诉讼时本可提出但未提出的任何其他问题，现在均不得再行主张。

4. Findings and analysis of the SEFEMA

The Hon’ble Tribunal made following analysis:

• 高等法院在审议了提交的所有问题后，驳回了令状诉讼。
• 加尔各答高等法院注意到涉案命令是可以上诉的，而申请人未提起上诉，反而提起了令状诉讼。
• 因此，显而易见，上诉人隐瞒了该上诉案件在本法庭审理中的事实。
• 据此，本案上诉已无存续基础。上诉人应受高等法院判决的约束，本案应予驳回。
• 上诉人已在尊敬的高等法院提出了所有问题，因理由不充分，令状诉讼被驳回。
• 上诉人本有机会在高等法院提出所有问题。
• 根据推定禁止反言原则，上诉人现已被禁止在法庭上再次提出相同主张。
• 当事人不得针对同一命令在同一诉讼当事人之间同时寻求两种救济途径。
• 毫无疑问，上诉人本可利用法定的上诉救济途径，且该途径已被耗尽，因此其不应同时提起令状诉讼。
• 既然令状诉讼已被加尔各答高等法院驳回，且高等法院的命令已具有终局性，上诉人现不得再推进此项上诉。
• 法庭援引了最高法院在 Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. 诉 Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Anr. 一案中的判决（1960(3)SCR 590），其中裁定：
  • 禁止反言原则基于司法裁决需要具有终局性的要求。
  • 其含义是，一旦事项已裁决，则不得再次审理。
  • 当某一事项——无论是事实问题还是法律问题——在两方当事人之间的一项诉讼或程序中已得到裁决，且该裁决具有终局性（无论是因未向更高级法院上诉、上诉被驳回，还是因无权上诉），任何一方均不得在未来双方之间的诉讼或程序中再次就该事项进行争辩。

• 因此，在本案中，上诉人在耗尽了高等法院的救济途径并败诉后，不得再推进此项上诉。
• 如果允许同时寻求多种救济，可能会导致相互冲突的裁决，产生严重后果，因此必须避免这种情况，以维护首个裁决的权威性。

5. Order

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that we don’t find that the appeal would survive after the judgment of the High Court.