|
Advanced Search Options
FEMA - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 440 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 (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 (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 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 (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 405 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Compounding of contravention of [Regulation 7] of FEMA - Procedure for compounding - HELD THAT:- When the information is brought to the notice of the RBI, before remitting the case to the appropriate adjudicating authority under the amended proviso, exercise of taking decision under sub-rule (2), does not get diluted in any manner. It is open for the compounding authority, after considering the objections received from the Enforcement Directorate and affording an opportunity of hearing, to take a decision to remit the case to the appropriate adjudicating authority so that requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 is complied with fully. In the instant case, merely coming into existence of the proviso will not render requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 nugatory. The proviso is in addition to sub-rule (2) and has to be read through sub-rule (....... + More
- 2019 (10) TMI 175 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sh. P. Chidambaram seeks bail - proposal for downstream investment - Petitioner, the then Finance Minister, Sh. P. Chidambaram approved the downstream proposal of INX News on 30.10.2008 - FIR alleging commission against Sh. Karti P. Chidambaram [arraigned as accused No. 3 in the said FIR under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to ‘PC Act’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.] HELD THAT:- As petitioner instead of joining the investigation approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order protecting the petitioner from arrest. Pursuant thereto, when the petitioner was called for interrogation under the protective umbrella of a pre-arrest bail reducing th....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 180 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Fastening liability on a director of a company for contravention of the FERA - Offences by companies - ‘Opportunity Notice’ - HELD THAT:- The adjudication proceedings are being pursued by the ED on the basis that each of the present Appellants was at the relevant time, “in charge of”, and “responsible to” NIL for the conduct of its business. There can be no doubt that the above standard for fastening liability on a director of a company for contravention of the FERA, applies to both criminal proceedings that would result following an ‘Opportunity Notice’ as well as the adjudication proceedings that would follow an SCN/MFA issued under Section 51 FERA. The foundational fact that requires to be shown to exist for proceeding against a person under Section 51 of the FERA read with Section 68 (1)....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 162 - DELHI HIGH COURT
CBI investigation for violation of provisions of FCRA - Cancellation of registration under FCRA - diversion of the funds for personal benefit of the office bearers or any other individuals - Constitutional validity of Section 43 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (‘FCRA’) and Rule 22 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 (FCRR) - whether they are arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT:- It is equally well settled principle of law that laws are not to be declared unconstitutional on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in an unrealistic fashion or in a vacuum or on the ground that there is a remote possibility of abuse of power. In fact, it must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that administration and app....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 971 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Non-compliance with the direction for pre-deposit - Offence under FEMA - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the respondent had earlier taken exception to the maintainability of these appeals at the outset, his submissions having been recorded in the proceedings on 11.07.2019 to the effect that the appellants are belated with reference to the order dated 15.11.2018 which, even otherwise, had not been challenged, the orders sought to be impugned by these appeals being only consequential. At the hearing, the counsel for the appellants was asked if they are now willing to make the pre-deposits as was directed by the appellate tribunal by its order dated 15.11.2018. The counsel answered in the negative taking the position that the appeals at hand raise questions of law. The order dated 15.11.2018 having attained finality, the appellate tribun....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 216 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Remedy of instituting an appeal to the Special Director (Appeals) - impugned order was served upon Petitioners by pasting on the premises sometime on 23rd February, 2019 and this Petition was lodged in the first week of May, 2019 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- If any issue of limitation arises, we are sure that the Appellate Authority will give due regard to all these circumstances. However, since the Petitioners haves alternate and efficacious remedy available under the FEMA itself, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. This Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioners to institute an appeal against the impugned order, in case the Petitioners so choose. All contentions of the Petitioners are expressly kept open, since we have not examined the merits of the matter.
- 2019 (8) TMI 215 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Petition by a person who refuses to subject himself to Indian Laws - whether the Writ Court should exercise its jurisdiction in case of a Petitioner who has been issued a non-bailable warrant by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT;- This Court by its [2018 (2) TMI 762 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] rejected the above contention and entertained the Petition by this very petitioner. We are informed that the status and condition of the Petitioner viz-a-viz Indian Law continues to remain what it was on 30th January, 2018 i.e. no red corner notice has yet been issued in respect of the Petitioner. These facts are not disputed and distinguished by the Revenue. Thus, this issue having already been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and no new facts have thereafter....... + More
........
|
