2018 (4) TMI 1110 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dinesh Kothari & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Violation of the declared FDI Policy - Held that - Enforcement Directorate has taken action against the violators. The Enforcement Directorate has also filed a counter affidavit pointing out that it is inquiring into e-commerce entities which are guided by self gain or motive other than in public interest and that the Bangalore Zonal office of the answering respondent had initiated enquiries against ten (10) e-commerce entities and in 5 out of th....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 681 - ATFEMA
Oriental Bank of Commerce Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Violation of FERA - lending against the deposit without taking any primary security - Held that - Bank had lent money against the security of deposits in the NRNR accounts. There was no bar in such type of lending as is apparent from the RBI s Notification. The bank was required to comply with the condition attached to such lending as prescribed by the RBI under the FERA/FEMA. One such condition was that the bank could grant loan facilities to re....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 421 - DELHI HIGH COURT
United India Airways Ltd & Anr. Versus Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate
Violation of Section 9(1)(e) of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 - failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 61(2) of FERA - Held that - The subject complaint was filed on 29.05.2002. Since petitioners were never granted an opportunity, as mandated by Section 61(2) of FERA, there is clearly a breach of the mandate of law. Since the requirements of Section 61(2) of FERA have not been complied with, reliance placed by the re....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 232 - ATFEMA
Ram Nath Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh
Stay petition - Held that - This is is an arguable case on merits and hence cannot also be stated to be prima facie in their favour. They are accordingly required to pre-deposit the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today failing which the appeal shall be disposed off as per the provisions of FEMA........ + More
2018 (4) TMI 162 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Esab India Limited Versus Union of India, Director of Enforcement, Department of Revenue
Order passed by an officer coram non judice - gross violation of the principles of natural justice. These orders have been passed without complying with the statutory requirements - Held that - Though a writ of certiorari can be issued by this court despite the presence of alternate and equally efficacious remedy, that is not a prohibition or rule, but a matter of prudence, still, whether to issue such a writ or not depends upon the facts and cir....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1291 - ATFEMA
Shri Ashutosh Saha Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata
Appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of penalty - Held that - All the information provided proves that the conduct of the appellant/his counsel has not been very honest and they have tried to misguide the tribunal. That they have failed to file a review petition within a reasonable time is apparent from above, and are now coming up with some ground or the other. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant during hearing....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1251 - DELHI HIGH COURT
CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi and Anr. Versus Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya
Public authority excluded from the purview of Right to Information Act - Held that - Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1250 - ATFEMA
Knight Riders Sports Private Limited Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Maintainability of Appeal under Section 19 of FEMA Act - Held that - Provisos to Section 19(1) of the Act, an appeal can be maintained/heard only when the issue of pre-deposit of penalty has been examined/addressed. - In the instant case, the conditions for filing Appeal has not been satisfied as no penalty has been imposed in the absence of an order . As the provisions laid down in Section 19(1) of the Act have not been fulfilled, the appeal fil....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1136 - ATFEMA
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Calling of witness Mr. Chokshi whose cross examination was already conducted on 20/09/2017 was rejected - Held that - It is the interest of justice, equity and fairplay, let Mt. Chokshi be further cross-examined on this aspect. The argument of the respondent has no forced that the appellant has covered entire case on 20.09.2017 if when the question of 41-45 were put to Mr. Chokshi. - Thus, the findings given in the impugned orders are contrary to....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1067 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurnihal Singh Pirzada Versus Directorate of Enforcement And Others
Working of Special Investigation Team ( SIT ) questioned - As submitted SIT especially the Directorate of Enforcement ( ED ) is acting in contravention and beyond the orders of this Court which was supposed to investigate the dispute of M/s International Customer Related Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ICRMS ) and rather it has plunged into third party disputes - Held that - In the light of unison shown by the learned counsel representi....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1066 - ATFEMA
M/s Sushil Sales Corporation Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Application of FEMA for a contravention in the FERA issue - Held that - The present appeal instead of being preferred before the Special Director (Appeals) under Section 17 of FEMA has being filed this Tribunal for Foreign Exchange under section 19 FEMA is not maintainable and thus the same is liable to be dismissed........ + More
2018 (3) TMI 119 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Bimal Kumar Jain Versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Violation of provisions of FEMA - cross-examination of the witnesses other than the IO - Held that - The application made to the Special Director in the course of proceedings in this case (dated 21.12.2017), is part of the record. No doubt, the appellant sought the Investigating Officer s cross-examination inasmuch as, according to him, examination as to the conclusion in his report was necessary. - The appellant, at the same time requested for c....... + More
2018 (2) TMI 1682 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Pradeep D. Kothari Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) , Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Order of seizure in terms of provisions of Section 37A(1) of FEMA - foreign exchange worth USD 352258.25 suspected to be held outside India in contravention of Section 4 of FEMA - Held that - The petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 08.01.2018 placing certain factual details regarding the amount, which was lying in the foreign Bank account in 2002. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed copy of the letters of H....... + More
2018 (2) TMI 762 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Lalit Kumar Modi Versus Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Others
Right to cross-examine - Cross examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 37 of FEMA and whose statements have been relied upon in the complaint - complaint alleges that the provisions of section 3(b) of the FEMA have been contravened by the petitioner by making a payment to Cricket South Africa (CSA) a person residing outside India, without permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and that is inter alia apparent from....... + More
2018 (2) TMI 579 - ATFEMA
Sh. Kamlesh B. Rawal Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Abetting one Sh. P.G. Rawal in transferring foreign exchange in contravention of Section 8(3) read with 8(4) and Section 48 read with Section 64(2) - Held that - While the order in original has passed a very detailed order, however the adjudicating authority has not given any evidence or facts to state as to how the appellant has abetted with Sh. P.G. Rawal, in the said contravention. It appears that he has based his judgment on an inference from....... + More
2018 (2) TMI 333 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Bimal Kumar Jain Versus The Directorate of Enforcement
Offence under FEMA - reject the petitioner s application for cross-examination - Held that - A plain reading of the application filed by the petitioner seeking cross-examination of certain individuals named above also indicates that the petitioner had reiterated its contention that the material or evidence on record does not substantiate the allegation made against him. At the outset, the petitioner had denied all the allegations made against him....... + More
2018 (1) TMI 1222 - ATFEMA
P.A. Noushad Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin
Contravention of section 3 FEMA - statement made under oath reliance - Held that - In harwala transactions, the main aspect is secrecy and stealth. Most of the facts relating to such transactions remain in the knowledge of the persons involved in such transactions. It is difficult for Authorities to unravel every link of such transitions. The burden is on the person to explain; otherwise adverse inference can be drawn based on surrounding facts a....... + More
2018 (1) TMI 568 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Union of India Through Competent Authority Versus Abbasbhai Mulla Fazle Abbas And 10
Brother of the present respondent was detained under the provisions COFEPOSA Act - Held that - No substance in any such ground for the simple reason that the law is well settled as interpreted and decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner has also tried to compare several other judgments and Special Act like TADA and NDPS Act to plead and to induce by this Court to believe that it would be difficult to get direct evidence to control....... + More
2018 (1) TMI 221 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Silicon Graphics Systems India Private Limited Versus Special Director of Enforcement & Ors.
Application for dispensation and directing appellant to deposit 10 of the penalty amount and to furnish a credible security for the balance 50 - Held that - On the one hand the appellant contends its financial credibility and on the other hand undue economic hardship. The Tribunal has waived off substantial pre-deposit and has directed only 10 of the penalty amount to be deposited with a surety for the balance 50 which cannot be said to be undue ....... + More
2017 (12) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Union of India Versus Shri Yogesh Mehta And Another, Sh. Hemal Thakkar
Revisional jurisdiction under the FERA - Notice of contravention of Section 51 of FERA was taken by the Adjudicating officer within two years from the date of the repeal of FERA - Held that - In the facts of the present case, the appellant is not without a remedy in the sense that a recourse can be taken to the remedies under the Constitution of India. The principle which governs Mimansa interpretation is that if a word or sentence purporting to ....... + More
Search 
