Home Case Index All Cases FEMA HC FEMA - HC This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

FEMA - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 468 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 and Decision etc.

• 2022 (6) TMI 1043
  
  Foreign Exchange Regulatory Appellate Board confirming the order passed by the Assistant Director imposing penalty and confiscating as per section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - HELD THAT:- Though the Appellant may be right in insisting on compliance of the order of this Court as it is and it is because of the pendency of the litigation that the Appellant is agreeable for receipt of the amount in Indian rupees, the Appellant cannot be penalized but must be compensated in fair manner. Accordingly, we direct that the order passed by this Court be complied with by the Enforcement Directorate within a period of eight weeks, with a clarification that the amount of US$ 1,300 should be converted in Indian rupees as per the rate prevailing as on today i.e. 14 June 2022 and be paid to the Appellant within a period of eight weeks....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 165
  
  Offence under FERA - Non-realization of payment towards exported goods - “reasonable steps” to be taken for securing the sale proceeds of exports or not? - concerned buyer in France became bankrupt and therefore, some of the export proceeds against the said consignments could not be realized - HELD THAT:- Any person effecting an export of goods is also responsible, rather duty bound, to also effect the securing of proceeds from such export/sale. The only exception, as per the language of the provision, is permission from the RBI, which if obtained may lead to granting of the leverage of not securing the proceeds within the stipulated and prescribed period. Further, sub-section 3 makes a presumption against the person who has not been able to secure the proceeds from exports that he/she has not taken all reasonable steps so as ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (5) TMI 256
  
  Offence under FEMA - prejudice on account of infraction of the procedure - main ground of challenge was that the impugned notice was issued without complying with the Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2000 - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority is required to give the notice under sub-rule (1) to the concerned person requiring him to show cause as to why inquiry should not be held against him indicating the nature of contravention alleged to have been committed by him. After considering the cause, if any shown, and on forming an opinion that an inquiry should be held, the adjudicating authority is required to issue notice under sub-rule (3) fixing the date of appearance. In the present case, undisputedly no notice in terms of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 4 has been given and straight away notice under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 has be....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (5) TMI 241
  
  Offence under FEMA - Petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 4(1) and 4(2) of the Adjudication Rules of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 - petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by refusal and failure to supply documents relied upon by the complainant Assistant Director - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, failure to bring back export proceeds to the extent of seven thousand crores arose out of loan transactions between the petitioner and his entities and about 23 banks. It is now well settled that every infraction of the principles of natural justice or procedure stipulated for adjudication would not vitiate a proceeding. The petitioner has to demonstrate actual and real prejudice The two tier procedure under Rule 4 which warrants a....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (4) TMI 937
  
  Offence under FEMA - maintainability of writ petition before this Court - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the writ petition filed at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Additional Director, is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in the territory of State of Rajasthan. The submission of the petitioner that initially a complaint was filed by the Additional Director and further direction to deposit the penalty amount in Jaipur Office, cannot be termed as a part of cause of action. This Court finds that the complaint which was filed against the petitioner, has resulted into issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, adjudication has to take place and as such the petitioners cannot be allowed to state that part of cause of action, has arisen in the territory of Stat....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 943
  
  Legality and validity of the seizure orders - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case reveal that before the learned Single Judge, though a prayer for quashment of seizure orders dated 26.08.2021, 30.09.2021 and 15.12.2021 was made, an interlocutory application was preferred for release of ₹ 15,35,45,317/- and the learned Single Judge has allowed the application. The writ petition itself has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 11.02.2022. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the seizure orders were not set aside and no statutory provision was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge for release of such amount and the seizure orders have been affirmed by the competent authority under Section 37A(2) of the Act, no such provisional release could have been ordered by disposing of the writ petition itself. Learned co....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 917
  
  Seizure orders - respondent No.2 has seized an amount of approximately 270 crores and has transferred a substantial portion of the said amount to its own bank account - HELD THAT:- Several circumstances are narrated with regard to the hardship which the petitioner Company would face, if an amount of ₹ 15,35,45,317/- is not ordered to be released. Under these circumstances, in order to keep the petitioner Company alive and to enable it to meet its day to day expenses like payment of salaries to its employees, payment of taxes, statutory dues and operational expenses etc., this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to release an amount of ₹ 15,35,45,317/- (Rupees fifteen crores thirty five lakhs fourty five thousand three hundred and seventeen only), which is commensurate with the ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 809
  
  Offence under FEMA - enquiry contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 on the basis of complaint by an Authorized officer as provided for under the said sub-section - As argued show-cause notices are not in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 of 2000 Rules - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that no indulgence is warranted in the matter of issuance of impugned show-cause notice dated 08.04.2021 and the notice for personal hearing dated 28.06.2021. Adjudicating Authority is yet to hold an enquiry and thereafter take a decision to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 13 of the FEMA. Thereafter, the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeals viz. (1) under Section 17 to the Special Director (Appeals) against the orders of the Adjudicating Authorities, being an Assistan....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (2) TMI 794
  
  Violation of provisions of FCRA, 2010 - Suspension of certificate - suspension u/s 13(1) of the FCRA, 2010 - HELD THAT:- This Court, in the facts of that case had set aside the suspension order on two grounds, firstly, no reasons have been spelt out in the suspension order and secondly, the respondents have neither issued Show Cause notice nor initiated an inquiry by the time the suspension order was passed. Insofar as, stating the reasons for suspension is concerned, as concluded above, the reasons have been given in the impugned order. To that extent, the judgment has no applicability. Insofar as the conclusion of the Court by the time the suspension order was passed neither an inquiry was initiated nor any Show Cause notice was issued is concerned, it is my conclusion that the process of inquiry was started in the year 2017. So, it is ....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 132
  
  Proceedings in terms of section 16(1) r/w sec. 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - contravention of the provisions of sections 3(b), 5, 6(2)(a) & 10(6) of FEMA r/w. Regulations 3 & 4(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulation 2000 in relation to a foreign exchange - HELD THAT:- After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the Central Govt. Counsel vehemently oppose the petitions making submission in justification of the impugned notice & the complaint and in support of the reasons on which they have been constructed. As these Writ Petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are, all contentions having been kept open. Petitioners are granted a period of four weeks for submitting their reply to the ....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 1130
  
  Foreign contributions - Prior permission u/s 11 to receive foreign contributions in the form of life saving equipment/articles for COVID-19 insofar as to expedite the relief work in our country - exemption to registered associations, organisations or persons, defined under Section 2(1)(m) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 to receive foreign contributions - HELD THAT:- As exemptions and relaxations under different Statutes are not a matter of right. It is the prerogative power of the Government to exempt or give relaxations with or without stringent conditions. It is not for the Court to direct the Government to exercise the power in a particular manner. It is evident from the pleadings and not denied by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing that before filing the present petition, Petitioner ....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 1129
  
  Search and seizure operation carried out by the officers of FEMA - search and specific seizure of certain gold jewellery which, according to him, was part of the stock-in-trade - Jurisdiction of High court - HELD THAT:- As cause of action has arisen within the State of West Bengal, that is, the search and seizure has taken place in West Bengal and the petitioner company is situated at West Bengal, in my view, there is no impediment in entertaining this writ petition before this High Court. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India clearly allows this High Court to have jurisdiction in such cases wherein the cause of action has partly arisen notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the authority dealing with the issue is outside the jurisdiction. Search and seizure of the excess jewellery that has been seized by the Enforceme....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (7) TMI 523
  
  Intimation by recipients of foreign contributions - Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (“FCRA”) - peculiarities in the FC-4 Form, whereunder returns, regarding contributions received by beneficiaries under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (“FCRA”) are required to be filed - petitioners’ accounts wherein foreign contributions were received were not in the SBI, till 7th October, 2020. As a result, the petitioners submit that it has become impossible for them to submit the return under FC-4 Form for the year 2019-2020.HELD THAT:- To a query from the Court as to how this situation could be remedied, Mr. Farman Ali, learned Counsel for the respondent, seeks a short adjournment in order to enable him to obtain instructions specifically on this aspect. However, he submits that no stay ought to be....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 929
  
  Offence under FEMA - Distinction between the two stages of the adjudication process - eligible reasons by the respondent no. 1 for the formation of opinion to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority, under the Scheme of the FEMA, performs a quasi-judicial function as opposed to a purely administrative function. The requirement of giving reasons therefore cannot be undermined and must be insisted upon from the Adjudicating Authority. The reasons to be given for its opinion under Rule 4(3) of the Adjudication Rules to proceed with the inquiry though need not be as elaborate as in a Court decision or let’s say an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 4(8) of the Adjudication Rules, but have to be adequate, proper and intelligible, sufficiently clear and explicit. They mus....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 198
  
  Applicant in respect of Section 31(1) of FERA - time-limit for cognizance of any offence under FERA - suit for specific performance for dismissal of the suit and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the suit is barred by law - HELD THAT:- The statement in the plaint has been made with reference to the letter dated 14th December, 1989 from the lawyers of the plaintiff to Helen Wilson which reveals that Helen Wilson was a foreign national and hence came within the statutory requirement of Section 31(1) of FERA. This letter also reveals that Helen Wilson may not have had the permission of the RBI or communicated such permission to the plaintiff as on 14th December, 1989 which would be corroborated by the letter of 8th October, 1993 of the RBI granting permission to Hele....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 190
  
  Search and seizure operation carried out by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under FEMA - excess jewellery seized - HELD THAT:- With regard to the search and seizure of the excess jewellery that has been seized by the Enforcement Directorate, it is to be noted that in the writ petition, the petitioner has relied on several documents to indicate that this “excess jewellery” was duly accounted for and had been sent for job work. In my view, the Enforcement Directorate should look into the documents filed in the writ petition and pass a reasoned order on whether these goods are stock-in-trade or not. In the event, the Enforcement Directorate finds that the same are duly accounted for, the same should be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The above enquiry and the reasoned order should be passe....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (4) TMI 82
  
  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 1303
  
  Search and seizure operation carried out by officers of FEMA - seizure of certain gold jewellery - maintainability of appeal - As argued bullion or jewellery being stock-in-trade of the business cannot be seized by the authorities - HELD THAT:- With regard to the maintainability point, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the State of West Bengal, that is, the search and seizure has taken place in West Bengal and the petitioner is residing at West Bengal, in my view, there is no impediment in entertaining this writ petition before this High Court. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India clearly allows this High Court to have jurisdiction in such cases wherein the cause of action has partly arisen notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the authority dealing with the issue is outside the jurisdiction. Search an....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (3) TMI 34
  
  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
  
  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

  ---

12345........ 24