Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index FEMA
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 549 Records

  • 2017 (10) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Nitin Sandesara Versus Directorate of Enforcement And Ors.

    Detention at the airport at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate - Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued by the Enforcement Directorate - violation of FEMA - Proceedings under PMLA - Held that - In the present case, the LOC does not indicate any credible reason for issuing the same. Plainly, recourse to LOC cannot be taken as a matter of course; restricting the right of a citizen to travel is a serious imposition on his/her fundamental rights....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 460 - ATFEMA

    M/s. Wadhwa Enterprises, Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa, Shri Rajeev Wadhwa Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

    Condonation of Delay - reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm lying locked and shifting of residence by the appellants as well as the chamber of the counsel of the appellant has been stated - Held that - As stated earlier, by an order dated 11th May, 2009 this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit 20 of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30 within a period of 45 days from ....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 459 - ATFEMA

    Shri P.R. Ganapathy Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

    Proceedings contemplated under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 - Held that - In the case of Shri Joji Thelliankal, who had acted as an agent to identify NRE account holders, there was no fool proof evidence on record, to establish that Shri Joji Thelliankal received premium amount and thus it was found by the trial court that there is no corroborative evidence except the statements. It was held that no other evidence on the records placed to show that S....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 352 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s Wood Tech Consultants Private Limited Versus Joint Director of Enforcement Office of The Joint Director of Enforcement, Government of India

    Partially dispensing with deposit of the penalty amount - order passed exercising the power under second proviso to Section 19(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that - It is relevant to state that an appeal would lie to the High Court under Section 35 of the Act on any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. On the facts of the case, it can t be said that the discretion exercised by the Appe....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 491 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    M/s. Lord Chloro Alkali Versus Special Director Enforcement Directorate

    Offence under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - penalty imposed - reason to believe for default - Held that - From the perusal of the SCN, it is clear that the, details furnished by the respondent department in the SCN, were vague and sketchy at best, for the appellant to trace back the contentious transaction of DM16000, which happened eight years back with respect to the time when the first letter was sent to the appellant Company by the ....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Rajendra Kumar Patel Versus Union Of India

    Interest on the amount of the Award - Payment of actual rate of interest earned by the respondent on the amount seized and confiscated from the petitioner - accretion to the amount seized from the petitioner - Held that - In the present case it is admitted that the respondent had received interest amounting to ₹1,64,52,470/- on the separate fixed deposit created from the currency seized. However, it is seen that the respondent has paid only....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1016 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    N.L. Dubasia & 1 Versus Union of India THR' & 2

    Provision of Section 78 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Section 44 of the Act applicability - Held that - The petitioner who had come to India from foreign country, wanted that their NRI Account/FCNR Account may be continued in the same status. It was a kind of privilege claimed. Such status could be accorded only within the permissible parameters and in accordance with law by the Reserve Bank of India. It is difficult to conceiv....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 756 - ATPMLA

    Suman S. Rana Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    Forfeiting the properties as order passed under section 7 of the SAFEMA, 1976 - purview of the term associate / relative - connection with alleged illegal activities of the detenu - Held that - The only activities that have been stated in this regard are that the appellant assisted AP-1 to assume the name of Sanjay Srinath Rana and to obtain documents like Ration Card and Passport in the assumed name and that the detenu resided in the residence o....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT

    Domnic Alex Fernandes (D) Through Lrs. & Others Versus Union Of India And Others

    Illegally acquired property within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA - whether tenancy of a property, ownership of which is acquired by a person to whom the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) applies, will be treated as illegally acquired property within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA and can be subjected to forfeiture under the provisions thereof? - Held that - In the present ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 574 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    The Enforcement Officer Versus Mohammed Akram

    Disobedience to respond to the summons issued under Section 40(3) FERA - offence under Section 56 of FERA, 1973 - Held that - This point has come up for consideration before this Court in Enforcement Director and Anr. v. M.Samba Siva Rao and Ors. (2000 (5) TMI 586 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Due to the divergence of opinion of the High Courts of Kerala, Madras on one hand and High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the other, a three Judge Bench of this C....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 423 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    N. Pandu Ranga Versus The Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Another

    Alternative remedy of appeal - Guilty for contravention of the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that - When the statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, the High Court should not entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When a right or liability is created by the statute, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constit....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    TTV Dhinakaran Versus The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India

    Contravention of certain provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that - It is of conscious of the fact that by this order, the petitioner should not take advantage and protract the proceedings. Likewise by rejecting this petition, I am of the considered view that it would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity of argument since framing of charges is an important event in the trial of warrant cases. In order to strike the ....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    M/s. Madhav Maganlal & Co and Anr. Versus Union of India And Anr.

    Penalties on account of violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and (d), Section 68(1), Section 64(2) and 63 of FERA - Whether the show cause notice is void being received by appellant after the sun set period? - Whether the statements given under section 108 of the Customs Act can be used as evidence against the accused? - Held that - The new law (FEMA) continues to govern action vis- -vis all offences under the repealed law (FERA) in accordance with the ....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 73 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Shabnam Arora Versus Union of India & Others

    Detention orders - Held that - We have discussed the role and position of the detenue in the smuggling ring. The detenue was not a mere carrier and was in-charge of the Delhi operations of the racket as the kingpin Sh.Narendra Kumar Jain was based in Guwahati. It is clear that the activities of the detenue were of a serious nature and perpetrated with a great deal of expertise and coordination. The activities were of a massive scale and had been ....... + More


  • 2017 (6) TMI 983 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Union of India rep. by The Director of Enforcement Versus M/s. Kiran Overseas Ltd., Shri. O.P. Batra (Died) rep. by Ranjiv Batra, Shri. M.G. Gupta, Shri. Gopalakrishna Thiyagarajan, Shir. Kiren Batra, Shri. Ranjiv Batra

    Condonation of delay - period of limitation - submission of the respondents that FEMA is a special statute and, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would have no application - Held that - Having regard to the provisions of the Statute, we are of the view that, given the language of the proviso to Section 35 of FEMA, this Court does not have a power to condone the delay beyond the time prescribed therein. The langua....... + More


  • 2017 (6) TMI 957 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Union of India Versus Maars Software International Ltd, Mr. T. Varadharajan

    Non release and repatriate to India any foreign exchange which is due or accrued - Whether the company had failed to take all reasonable steps within the prescribed period, to release and repatriate to India, any foreign exchange which is due or accrued to it and in failure to do so, the department shall proceed, as per Section 8 of the Act, read with Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Fore....... + More


  • 2017 (5) TMI 852 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE

    Jaipur IPL Cricket (P.) Ltd. Versus Special Director, Mumbai

    Violation of Section 3 of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - In the present case, the remitter and investor are different and are not in accordance with the Regulations made by the Reserve Bank of India under the Act. The remittance 1 and remittance 2 were made by the person other than the investor and are in direct contravention of Regulation 5 of FEMA (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulations, 2000. - From the perusal of record, it is clear ....... + More


  • 2017 (5) TMI 492 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    NTT Docomo Inc. Versus Tata Sons Limited

    Enforcement of the Award - recognition and enforcement of Award made in favour of Docomo - Held that - As regards the refusal of permission by RBI for the second time, after the Award, the seeking of such permission by Tata was based on its earlier opposition to the Award which was similar to the one raised now by RBI. With Tata having accepted the Award as such, it has withdrawn its objections thereto and consequently its stand in the applicatio....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 930 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    India Cements Limited, N. Srinivasan, T.S. Raghupathy, R. Hariharasubramanian Vice-President (Finance and Taxation) Versus Union of India, The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement

    Proceedings under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Rule 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 - Held that - Reasons have been clearly disclosed by the second respondent in the communications dated 04.11.2016 by specifically indicating that the case requires an indepth examination, meaning thereby, the objections raised by the petitioners as against the allegations l....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 729 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    CRUZ CITY 1 MAURITIUS HOLDINGS Versus UNITECH LIMITED

    Enforcement of a foreign award - express representations were made that the transactions were in compliance with the applicable laws, it is now contended that the SHA was only a device to circumvent the provisions of FEMA - Held that - The conduct and the stand of Unitech can most charitably be described as plainly dishonest. This court is of the view that permitting Unitech to prevail on such contentions to resist the enforcement of Award would ....... + More


1........
 
 
 
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version