Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Case Laws
Home Case Index FEMA
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 526 Records

  • 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


  • 2017 (4) TMI 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT

    Brajesh Kr Srivastava @ Brajesh Kr, Son of Surendra Pd Srivastava Versus The State of Bihar

    Rejecting the petition of the petitioner for releasing the foreign currency notes recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner - Held that - From plain reading of Section 451 of Cr P C, it appears that the Court should pass order with regard to the custody or release of the seized articles. Admittedly, the petitioner was having licence to deal in foreign currency and his licence was valid up till 31.08.2016. He applied for renewal of his licence ....... + More


  • 2017 (3) TMI 1059 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Sukh Ram Versus Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr.

    Penalty imposed under FEMA for contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 72(i)(c) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order - Held that - Having regard to the specific case of the writ petitioner/appellant herein that the impugned order was in violation of the principles ....... + More


  • 2017 (2) TMI 656 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Smt. N. Sasikala Versus The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India

    Complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that - On perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is clearly revealed that so many incriminating materials available against the petitioner/A3. It is also revealed that the petitioner/A3 was informed by A2 about the business transa....... + More


  • 2017 (2) TMI 518 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance Versus Smt. T.T.V. Dinakaran

    Complaint under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Acquirng foreign exchange without previous general or special permission from the Reserve Bank of India during the year 1994/95 from persons not being authorised dealers in foreign exchange and deposited the amounts in a bank account outside India - Held that - On perusal of the letter written by the respondent, the contention of the respondent that he is....... + More


  • 2017 (1) TMI 1342 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Cheruvathur Chakkutty Thampi @ C.C. Thampi Versus Union of India, The Directorate of Enforcement

    Purchase of agricultural lands in India in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) - Detention of passport - Look Out Circular issued - Whether the passport of the petitioner can be impounded and the impugned notices issued by the respondents are sustainable? - Held that - As per the instructions issued by the respondents/ department, look out circular can be issued against (i) persons with terrorist or militant links (ii) beligerent ....... + More


  • 2017 (1) TMI 1166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    T.T.V. Dhinakaran Versus Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

    Penalty for contraventions of the provisions of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 14 of FERA - legal status of the appellant independently - Held that - As seen from the records that the appellant claimed not a citizen before the Division Bench of this Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition. In the election petition filed by him, he claimed as an Indian citizen. But before the Foreign Exchange Regulation authorities, he claimed as if he is a non-resident I....... + More


  • 2017 (1) TMI 1114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Smt. T. Seshammal (died) , T. Krishnaveni, T. Gnaneswaran, P. Balachandran, T. Murugadoss, T. Sasikala, T. Jaishankar Versus The Competent Authority Smugglers and Foreign Exchange, The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property

    Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - forfeiture order - detention of the original petitioners - Held that - In the present case, the original petitioner is not a person of no means. Her father owned properties and wrote a will. Later, it was cancelled and the family members had a registered deed of partition among themselves. Further, her father was a gold and silver merchant and has declared jewellery ....... + More


  • 2017 (1) TMI 826 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Versus Special Director Of Enforcement

    Violation of Section 8 (3) and Section 8 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Chapter 7A.20 (i) of the Exchange Control Manual, 1995 - Held that - Courts have repeatedly held that in quasi criminal proceedings the penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to impose the penalty. Whether penalty should be imposed or not is a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially and on consideration of all the relevan....... + More


  • 2017 (1) TMI 461 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Director of Enforcement, The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

    Maintainability of the writ petitions before this Court - whether issue involved in these writ petitions relate to 2G Spectrum Case and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions? - Held that - Since the investigation carried on by the respondents is being monitored by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is too early for this Court to take up these writ petitions for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the prelimin....... + More


1........
 
 
 


|| 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