The denial of the right to cross-examine did not result in a breach of principles of natural justice, as the prejudice caused needed to have a tenor of 'real prejudice' and not just a technical infringement of principles of natural justice.

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. The aforementioned writ petitions lay challenge to a common order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi (in short DOE). The impugned order has resulted in, the request made by the petitioners by way of a common application dated 12.12.2012, for cross examination of persons whose names and details are set out in paragraph 4 of their application, being declined.

2. The petitioners before me claim that this is resulted in breach of the principles of natural justice. It may be pertinent to note, at the very outset, that the proceedings before the Special Director, DOE have not concluded, as yet. It may also be relevant to record that, this is a second round of litigation before this court. In the first round, the petitioner had approached this court, by way of two separate writ petitions bearing nos.6358/2012 and 6360/2012, seeking copies of final replies filed by other noticees apart from the petitioners herein; who are arrayed as respondents in the complaint filed by DOE. The said writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 05.10.2012, directing respondents to give replies, if any, filed by other noticees after the petitioners had filed their final reply. It is not disputed before me that the respondents have complied with the said direction and have supplied copies of replies of other noticees.

3. Before I deal with the contentions of the petitioners raised before me, I may briefly touch upon the circumstances which have led to the institution of the present petitions:-

3.1 On 01.07.2007, the Assistant Director, DOE filed a complaint under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short FEMA) for alleged contravention of Section 6(3)(b) of the FEMA read with Regulation 5(1) and paragraph 2, 3 and 9(1) (A) and (B) of Schedule 1 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a person resident outside India ) Regulations, 2000 (in short 2000 Regulations) as also the provisions of Press Note No.3 (2007 series) issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (SIA), (FC Division), Government of India (in short GOI), by a company going by the name Etisalat D.B Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd.). (in short Etisalat)

3.2 In so far as the petitioners were concerned along with five (5) other noticees, they were charged with contravention of the provisions of Section 42 of the FEMA.

3.3 In the complaint, it was alleged that Etisalat and the petitioners who along with other five (5) noticees were Directors in the said company at the relevant point in time had contravened the provisions of FEMA, resulting in violation to the tune of several thousand crores. The amount referred to in the complaint adds upto, approximately, Rs.7260 Crores. The complaint was accompanied by documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the respondents, in the proceedings presently pending before the Special Director, DOE. The details of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed, is set out in Annexure B, which accompanies the complaint. In all, there are sixteen (16) documents referred to in Annexure B, amongst which there are statements of three (3) persons made on various dates, the persons concerned are : Ahmed Shakir, Director Genex Exim Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (in short Genex) and Mr. Pratap Ghose, CFO of Etisalat, K. Vasudeva, Vice President (Finance), Etisalat. It may be pertinent to note it is these persons apart from the complainant i.e., one Rajeshwar Singh, Assistant Director, DOE, qua whom the petitioners made a request for cross-examination.

3.4 In nutshell, the allegation against the noticees is that, during the period 2008 to May, 2010, foreign direct investment was made in Etisalat (which was formerly known as Swan), camouflaged as a domestic investment, thereby contravening the extant rules and regulations which required that, a no