[caption id="attachment_540712" align="aligncenter" width="628"]<a href="https://www.cricketcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rr.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-540712 " alt="Rajasthan Royals, has moved Delhi High Court for speedy disposal of its appeal IANS" src="https://www.cricketcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rr.jpg" width="628" height="355" /></a> R IANS[/caption] <p></p> <p></p>Suspended IPL team, <a href="https://www.cricketcountry.com/teams/Rajasthan-Royals">Rajasthan Royals</a>, has moved Delhi High Court for speedy disposal of its appeal before a tribunal against a penalty of Rs 100 crore imposed on it and its investors by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt Ltd, which owns Rajasthan Royals, told Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva that its appeal against the penalty has been pending before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange since 2013 and no decision has been arrived at till date. The court then issued notice to the Centre and the tribunal seeking their replies by November 10. <p></p> <p></p>It asked the Centre's standing counsel to take instructions regarding timeline of disposal of cases before the tribunal. Jaipur IPL (JIPL) told the court that it had deposited Rs 15 crore in March last year and claimed that under the law, the appeal had to be disposed of within 180 days from filing of the plea. The amount was deposited on the direction of the Bombay High Court. ED had imposed the Rs 100 crore fine on JIPL and other investors in February 2013. The penalty imposed on JIPL was over Rs 50 crore, while Mauritius-based EM Sporting Holding and its directors were to pay Rs 34 crore and Rs 14.5 crore by UK based MD investments and its directors. <p></p> <p></p>In its plea before the high court, JIPL has sought a direction to the tribunal to re-hear its appeal and pass speaking orders within eight weeks. It has claimed that their appeal has been fully heard twice and orders received, but the matter was never disposed of. It also contended, that one of the members of the tribunal was set to retire and this could lead the matter to get further delayed.