Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA HC FEMA - HC
Citation -
Order by


FEMA - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 355 Records

  • 2016 (2) TMI 476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Challenge to the RBI (FEMA) circular - validity and legality - Policy in relation to import of Gold - On or about 14th August, 2013, RBI issued another Circular no. 25, referring to the said Circular no. 15 dated 22nd July, 2013, for clarification / modification in supersession of the earlier instructions, and made it incumbent on all nominated agencies to make exclusively available at least one fifth i.e. 20 of every lot of gold imported to the ....... + More

  • 2015 (12) TMI 1294 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of Section 23 (1) read with Section 4 (1) FCRA, 1976 - Petitioner received funds without obtaining prior permission of the Central Government - Held that - Foreign entities through whom such funds were sent were holding the same on behalf of his father. To this effect, Mr. Vipin Khanna made a statement dated 11.07.2006, whereby stated that these funds were sent on his instructions to the petitioner. Moreover, vide statement dated 13.04........ + More

  • 2015 (12) TMI 1245 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Power of court to review and supervise the investigations against the political party - investigations under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) - Held that - Undoubtedly the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, are entitled to direct investigation into an offence alleged to have taken place, as reiterated by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights West Beng....... + More

  • 2015 (11) TMI 131 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Bail application - Arrest made without the mentioning of name in FIR - arrest of the applicant without a warrant in a non-cognizable offence - applicant is alleged to have received ₹ 7 crores from one Natural Trading Company and ₹ 6.31 crores from one M/s Gangeshwar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. without satisfactory explanation - revention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Held that - Applicant, at this stage, has failed to satisfactorily establ....... + More

  • 2015 (11) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Confiscation of amount seized from appellant premises - amount was obtained by any unfair means - offence under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act - Held that - It is apparent that the alleged confessional statement dated 30.04.1991, said to have been recorded from the appellant by the Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement has not been corroborated by any independent witness. Further, neither Mohamed Hilal of Kuwait, nor Jahubar Nissar, from whose r....... + More

  • 2015 (11) TMI 28 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Tribunal while directing the petitioner(s) to deposit 15 of the amount of penalty imposed and to furnish reliable security for the balance amount of 85 as a pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal has noticed that the petitioner (s) has an arguable case and it would cause hardship in case the waiver is not allowed, but no case of complete waiver was made out. - petitioner(s) has been required to pre-deposit 15 of the penalty amount as a condition p....... + More

  • 2015 (10) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Otherwise acquired foreign currencies - Proceedings under FERA, 1973 - holding the currency as owner thereof and handing a part of for safe custody with the appellant s mother and wife - ownership of foreign currencies - validity of statement before income tax authorities - Held that - FERA and the Income Tax Act are two separate and independent Acts operating in two different fields. Therefore, we do not think that the appellants can take advant....... + More

  • 2015 (9) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Detention order challenged - Held that - The language of Section 5A of COFEPOSA makes it abundantly clear that if the order of detention is made on two or more grounds, the said order of detention shall be deemed to have been separately on each ground and accordingly the detention order shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because one or some of the grounds is or are invalid. In the present case, the bail applications relating to co-accused M....... + More

  • 2015 (9) TMI 1192 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Petitioner challenges at pre-detention stage his detention - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - smuggling of gold. - absence of live link due to time gap between the detention order dated 31st March, 2015 and the occurrence on 7th July, 2014 - Held that - While deciding the issue whether the proposed deteun has absconded, the courts would have to examine the factual matrix. - in the facts of the pr....... + More

  • 2015 (9) TMI 338 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Application filed beyond period of limitation Condonation of Delay Appeal was preferred against final order of Tribunal which was allowed and order of adjudication was quashed Aggrieved by said order of tribunal, appeal was filed before High court which is objected on ground that it has been preferred beyond period of limitation Held that - Apparently, appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 832 days. - Section 35 of FEMA permits appeal t....... + More

  • 2015 (8) TMI 1105 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Contravention of Section 18 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - non-realization of export proceeds - Held that - Although Section 68 FERA is in the nature of a deeming provision, the proviso thereto contemplates rebuttal of such presumption by a person who is able to show that the contravention took place without his or her knowledge. - memorandum is a cyclostyled form and the averments as regards all the directors is identical. Th....... + More

  • 2015 (8) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Waiver of pre deposit - contravention of Section 3(b) and 6(2) of FEMA read with Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulations, 2000 read with para 8 of Schedule I to Regulation 5(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer of Issue of Security by a person resident outside India) Regulations, 2000 - Imposition of penalty - Amount remitted for franchisee in IPL, reached BCCI through concerns abr....... + More

  • 2015 (7) TMI 1080 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to maintain the present appeal before this CourT - Unauthorised acquisition of foreign exchange - Tribunal after examining the records, found that the charge against the respondent herein was not proved by the prosecution and agreed with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly dismissed the Revision - Held that - In the case in hand, admittedly no notification for appointing the Direc....... + More

  • 2015 (7) TMI 701 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Imposition of penalty - Failure to furnish evidentiary proof of imports regarding foreign exchange in respect of nine remittances in contravention of Sections 8 (3) and 8 (4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that - Documents were in respect of imports that took place pursuant to the remittances made in the years 1994 to 1999. The Customs authorities had in 1995 seized some of the files in respect of imports that had taken place in ....... + More

  • 2015 (5) TMI 1120 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus in the matter of detention of the petitioner, who is detained passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India (COFEPOSA), New Delhi - Held that - Having regard to the categorical assertions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General we are of the view that since a copy of the representation was only marked to the Advisory Board and no copy was supplied to either the Central Government or ....... + More

  • 2015 (5) TMI 1033 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

    Nature of offences - whether Offences, punishment of which extend to seven years, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 FERA) being noncognizable in terms of Section 62 of the Act, are bailable or nonbailable? - Held that - Under FERA the power in terms of Section 45 of the FERA though has been given to police officer and other officer to make search and arrest when warrant but no provision is there that if arrest is affected by the off....... + More

  • 2015 (5) TMI 939 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of appeal - whether the appeals were dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal (which is the new avatar of the Appellate Board) under FERA or FEMA - Held that - Language of Section 49(5)(b) of FEMA is suggestive of the fact that it is only an appeal, which was pending before the Appellate Board, and which could not be disposed of before the commencement of the Act (i.e., FEMA), would stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefo....... + More

  • 2015 (5) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of the provisions of Section 9 (1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA - Receipt and distribution of money - Receipt of commission - Validity of assessment proceedings - inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings - Held that - Frivolous proceedings or proceedings taken out to merely delay the day of reckoning cannot be treated as proceedings taken in good faith, and that, mere fact on an application or petition, a stay is granted by a superio....... + More

  • 2015 (5) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Recovery of large amount of cash - contravention of the provision of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA Act, 1973 - Offence under Section 56(1)(i) of FERA Act and Sections 49(3) and (4) of FEMA Act, 1999 - Reliability on co-accused s statement - Held that - confession of co-accused is admissible only if the case of other co-accused has been tried jointly as per Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed o....... + More

  • 2015 (4) TMI 985 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Detention of petitioner - Prevention of smuggling of goods - Held that - Detaining authority, after passing the detention order dated 27th February, 1989 was indifferent in securing the detenu by not taking proper action with great caution. It further appears that the police authorities of the Respondent No.4 were also not prompt in their action in executing the said detention order and the execution of the said detention order was unduly delayed....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version