|
Advanced Search Options
FEMA - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 741 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (4) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of permission to remit foreign exchange - FEMA ODI Regulations - approval on the basis of the reservations expressed by ED - as the wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent has already taken the credit of foreign exchange from various lenders and the foreign exchange has already come to the country. It is only this foreign currency which is now being repaid by the respondent - Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent to permit Petitioner to make additional commitments and payments of USD 300 Million to its wholly owned subsidiary namely Jindal Steel and Power (Mauritius) Limited by way of equity subscription or loan or corporate guarantee or bank guarantee or through other permitted mode from Indian Bank for meeting its debt obligations - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the order of denial of permission dated 30.12.2019 based....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT
Transaction entered into by a foreign citizen of “Indian origin”, to deal with real estate in India on certain conditions - transaction (specified in Section 31 of the 1973 Act) entered into in contravention of that provision is void or is only voidable and it can be voided at whose instance - Mandation to get general or special permission of the RBI for transfer or disposal of immovable property situated in India by sale or mortgage by a person, who is not a citizen of India - HELD THAT:- Foreigners should not be permitted/allowed to deal with real estate in India; the peremptory condition of seeking previous permission of the RBI before engaging in transactions specified in Section 31 of the 1973 Act and the consequences of penalty in case of contravention, the transfer of immovable property situated in India by a person, wh....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offence under FEMA - Review Petition - Correction of clerical errors - respondent Sakunthala had received payment unauthorisedly in her residential premises - respondent Sakunthala that her husband Muthupal Chettiar was a partner in Kumaran and Co in Malaysia - The Appellate Board had found that there was a accidental slip and held in paragraph No.7 that ''After giving careful thought to the contentions of the parties, I find this to be a fit case where benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant at S.No.1 and 2 and therefore, hold that the charge against her have not been established'' - HELD THAT:- Appellate Board upon satisfying that the accidental slip had occurred in the order attributable to an over-sight that the non-receipt of ₹ 75,000/- by the appellant at S.No.2 in the order conflicting with the concl....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 915 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Offence under COFEPOSA ACT - detention order - respondents desired to unlock the mobile phone instrument of the petitioner to retrieve the materials/ documents therefrom but petitioner did not co-operate in the opening/ unlocking of his mobile phone instrument - HELD THAT:- As timeline satisfactorily explains and justifies the time taken by the Respondents in undertaking investigation, which finally culminated in passing of the impugned Detention Order. The initial proposal sent by the Sponsoring Authority in February, 2019 was not found sufficient to justify the petitioner’s detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The Sponsoring Authority, therefore, continued with its efforts to conduct further investigation and, for that purpose, retrieval of the contents of the mobile phone of the petitioner was crucial. Vide his letter d....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 904 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Offences under FEMA Act - whether show cause notice has been issued without considering the amendments made in various regulations framed under FEMA Act, 1999? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that there are transactions in foreign exchange either as derivatives or in the form of currency futures. The issue in this matter is as to whether the transactions have been made in accordance with Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts) Regulations, 2000 or not. The issue can be sorted out only after all the relevant documents are placed before the authorities. Thus, not entering into the merits of the case. Considering the pandemic situation, the authorities are requested to allow the petitioners to submit their record within 8 (eight) weeks from today. The oral submissions of the petitioners be recorded by way of vid....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 486 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest liability u/s 42(3) of FERA - main ground on which the Petitioner claims interest is that Section 42(3) of FERA stipulates that interest is payable at 6% p.a. in all cases other than cases relating to confiscation either under Section 63 of FERA or under the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In present writ petition claiming interest was filed on or about 28.08.2009. It is clear that the writ petition was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800. Upon perusal of the affidavit, find that the Petitioner stated that she and her counsel visited the office of the 1st Respondent to request for the payment of interest and that she was constrained to file the writ petition on account of non-payment thereof. Apart from this statement, no explanation is offered for the delay and no written reminders are ....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 479 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Holding of inquiry against the petitioner in the manner provided in Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- Impugned Show Cause Notice is at the first stage wherein the Adjudicating Authority on receiving a reply to the Impugned Show Cause Notice is to form an opinion whether an inquiry at all should be held against the petitioner. At this stage we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this present petition. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all its contentions before the Adjudicating Authority. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the decision taken by the Adjudicating Authority, it shall always be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.
- 2020 (12) TMI 187 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission for Direct Investment in certain cases - Remittance of equity subscription/loan/corporate guarantee/bank guarantee or through other permitted mode - additional financial commitment in JSPML by way of equity subscription/loan/corporate guarantee/bank guarantee, etc. - Denial of grant permission to the petitioner to make additional commitment/payment - respondent have rejected the application of the petitioner and have not granted permission for making the additional financial commitment/payment of USD 300 million on account of the objection raised by the Enforcement Directorate - HELD THAT:- Respondent RBI by a cryptic non-speaking order has rejected the application of the petitioner without giving any reasons whatsoever. The said order fails to give any reasons as to why the application of the petitioner is being rejected. The ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 513 - ATFEMA
Restrictions on dealing in foreign exchange - diversion of exported goods, non-realisation of export proceeds, non-clearance of imported bills and write off/ set off - HELD THAT:- Trend Setters Group of Companies had failed to submit Bill of Entry as evidence for actual import of the goods. Trend Setters Group of Companies did not realised the substantial portion of export proceeds and it is also established that except filing a Suit before a Sub-Court in Ernakulam, Kerala and writing to the RBI for write off/ set off, no other steps have been taken. In other words, no sufficient and visible efforts have been by/ on behalf of the Trend Setters Group of Companies to realise the export proceeds. Who was/were the person/persons responsible for the diversion of export goods / non-realisation of export proceeds and remittances of payment towar....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1031 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Extension of the usance period of the Letter of Credit Facility sanctioned to the writ petitioners from 180 days to 270 days - distinction between the usance period of a Letter of Credit and the period of a Trade Credit - HELD THAT:- The argument that the 2018 Regulations brought about a change in policy regarding the usance period for credit does not hold water, since the said Regulations and the Master Direction on External Commercial Borrowings and Trade Credits dated July 1, 2015, updated up to October 6, 2015, relate to loans extended by overseas banks. The germane consideration in the present case is, rather, the Master Direction - Import of Goods and Services dated January 1, 2016 (updated lastly on April 1, 2019). Trade Credit Policy - Revised Framework formulated by the RBI on March 13, 2019 does not alter the position as far as ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Detention Orders at the pre-execution stage - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) - HELD THAT:- Proposals for invoking the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act were mooted in the second week of October 2019 - overseas evidence was received from SPA Dubai in the first week of November 2019. The proposal to detain the petitioners was further analysed keeping in view the strong tendency to indulge in smuggling activities in future. The proposal for preventive detention of the petitioners was sent to the Detaining Authority on 02.01.2020. The proposal was placed before the Central Screening Committee on 13.01.2020, and the recommendations of the Central Screening Committee (CSC) were submitted to the Detaining Authority on 14.01.2020. The proposals were examined by the Detaining Authority....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 392 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seizure and attachment of the bank account of the petitioner's father - grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the bank account mentioned in the writ petition is not allowed to be operated by the petitioner under the guise of investigating the matter under FEMA and no order of attachment was passed by the first respondent at any point of time in respect of the said bank account and therefore, the petitioner cannot be prevented from operating the bank account - HELD THAT:- Investigation under FEMA is pending and the investigation conducted so far reveals that the amount inter alia lying in the subject matter bank account appears to have been involved in violation of provisions of FEMA. Though such counter affidavit is filed, when a specific question is put to the leaned counsel for the first respondent by this Court as t....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT
Proceeding against a Director of a company for contravention of provisions of FERA, 1973 - Non-executive Director responsibility for the conduct of business of the Company - notice dated 19.02.2001 was issued by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate to decide as to whether the adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 should be held against the Directors for contravention - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not submitted any reply to show cause notice dated 19.02.2001 which though was addressed to the Company and all Directors and the reply was sent only by the Company Secretary on 26.03.2001. The representation dated 29.10.2003 was the first representation submitted by the appellant before the adjudicating officer during course of personal hearing. What is said by a person who is called for personal hearing even though gi....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission for Direct Investment in certain cases - direct investment in joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary outside India - application the petitioner seeks permission for remission of USD 54.99 Million on or before 31st July, 2020 - HELD THAT:- What prima facie appears is that based on a communication written by Directorate of Enforcement containing cryptic information the RBI/respondent has chosen to withhold permission to the petitioner. The discretion under clause 9 of the abovenoted Regulations has to be exercised by RBI the respondent based on cogent facts and materials and not at the mere directions of Directorate of Enforcement. It was for the respondent/RBI to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view its own permissions given and subsequent facts and events that may have taken place....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 25 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission for Direct Investment in certain cases - on the saying of the concerned Enforcement Directorate, permission is being refused to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In case an Indian party does not satisfy the eligibility norms of Regulation 6 then it may apply for RBI for approval. It is Regulation 6 which states that permission cannot be given in case the investigations are pending by the Law Enforcement agencies. Regulation 9 does not provide any such stipulation. Hence, prima facie the petitioner was correct in having approached RBI under Regulation 9. Counsel for RBI has pointed out to some inquiry initiated recently as mentioned in communication dated 14.08.2019 by Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner refutes this. We cannot help noticing that the corporate guarantee and the loans have prima facie been taken with the prior per....... + More
- 2020 (4) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offence under FERA - Economic Offence cases - failure to realize the respective full export proceeds of the goods within the stipulated period - Transaction in clandestine manner - Whether opportunity notice as contemplated under the proviso to Section 61 (2) (ii) of FERA has been issued to A-1 to A-3? - Whether prior permission as mandated u/s 18 (2) of FERA has been obtained by A-1 to A-3 from the Reserve Bank of India;? - judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court - HELD THAT:- This Court has no hesitation in holding that even non-issuance of opportunity notice as contemplated u/s 61 (2) (ii) of FERA will not vitiate the case. However, in the case on hand, Ex.P-41, opportunity notice as contemplated u/s 61 (2) (ii) of FERA has been issued to the accused. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial court that no opportunity n....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURT
Organisation of a political nature as barred from receiving foreign contributions - Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 as violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 of the Constitution of India - Guidelines for declaration of an organisation to be an organisation of a political nature not being a political party are found in Rule 3 of the Rules - principal challenge of the Appellant-organisation to Section 5 (1) of the Act is on the ground that the terms ‘activity, ideology and programme’ are vague and have not been defined in the Act which result in conferring unbridled and unfettered power on the executive. Therefore, the Appellant-organisation contended that Section 5 (1) is violative ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1102 - SUPREME COURT
Violation of provisions of Section 10(6) of the FEMA Act - Responsibility of Authorised person - goods had arrived in India, but the Company failed to submit Bill of Entry and did not take delivery of the goods - goods not released and as such kept in bonded warehouse - defence of the appellant that he could not be made responsible for the stated contravention. For, he became the Managing Director of the Company much later i.e. on 22.10.2001 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the finding of fact is that the import of goods for which the foreign exchange was procured and remitted was not completed as the Bill of Entry remained to be submitted and the goods were kept in the bonded warehouse and the Company took no steps to clear the same. As a result, Section 10(6) of the FEMA Act is clearly attracted being a case of not using the procured ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1366 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Preventive detention - Powers in relation to absconding persons - COFEPOSA Act - delay in detaining the detenu - whether the detenu is absconding? - HELD THAT:- Ground is answered by the Learned Government Advocate to contend that the appropriate Government has not taken a decision as to whether the detenu is absconding or not. We are of the view that such an explanation by the State is unacceptable. After the issuance of an order of preventive detention the detenu requires to be arrested forthwith. If not, the procedure under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act requires to be complied with. They have failed to do so. The contention of the Learned Government Advocate runs contrary to the facts of the case. Therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in the case of Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 544 - ATFEMA
Contravention of FEMA - Investment in three step-down subsidiaries through Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) without the permission of the RBI - Penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- As provided that if any person contravened any provision of this act or contravened any rules, regulation, notification, direction or order issued in exercise of the powers under this Act be liable to penalty upto thrice the sum involved in such contravention where such amount is quantifiable. In the present case the sum involved are quantifiable. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellants submitted, on query by the Bench, submitted that more than six crores of INR were invested in the step-down subsidiaries. If it is so the imposition of ₹ 70 lakhs on the appellant company and ₹ 20 lakhs on the Managing Director is not disproportion....... + More
........
|
