Home Case Index All Cases FEMA SC FEMA - SC 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 - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 118 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.

• 2021 (10) TMI 1131
  
  Pre-deposit requirement qua the petitioner - As petitioner submit that he in no way concerned with the affairs of the company after his resignation on 6-5-2006 much less with the agreement dated 21-6-2006. Further, even the earlier agreement was between the two companies to which the petitioner was not a signatory - HELD THAT:- As in our opinion, for the stand taken by the petitioner, we direct the Appellate Authority to exempt the requirement of pre-deposit as regards this petitioner (M. Umesh), in case he resorts to remedy of appeal in light of the liberty given in terms of this order. In other words, the Appellate Authority shall not insist for pre-deposit requirement qua the petitioner herein, i.e. M. Umesh. Besides, the appellate authority shall not non-suit the petitioner for having filed the appeal beyond limitation as the petitioner was pursuing remedy before the High Court in the first place and thereafter before this Court, after issuance of show cause notice.

  ---

• 2021 (9) TMI 730
  
  Extension of tenure of Director of Enforcement - extension of tenure granted to persons holding the post of Director of Enforcement after attaining the age of superannuation - fixing the tenure for a minimum period of two years - procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (‘CVC Act’) - Whether there can be extension of tenure of a person who has been appointed as a Director of Enforcement for a period of two years and who has attained the age of superannuation in the interregnum i.e. before the expiry of two years? - HELD THAT:- Government servant shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Posts for which there can be extension beyond 60 years have been specifically mentioned in the Rule and there is no dispute that the post of Director of Enforcement is not mentioned in the Rule fo....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (3) TMI 92
  
  Transaction entered into by a foreign citizen of “Indian origin”, to deal with real estate in India on certain conditions - transaction (specified in Section 31 of the 1973 Act) entered into in contravention of that provision is void or is only voidable and it can be voided at whose instance - Mandation to get general or special permission of the RBI for transfer or disposal of immovable property situated in India by sale or mortgage by a person, who is not a citizen of India - HELD THAT:- Foreigners should not be permitted/allowed to deal with real estate in India; the peremptory condition of seeking previous permission of the RBI before engaging in transactions specified in Section 31 of the 1973 Act and the consequences of penalty in case of contravention, the transfer of immovable property situated in India by a person, wh....... + More

  ---

• 2020 (8) TMI 44
  
  Proceeding against a Director of a company for contravention of provisions of FERA, 1973 - Non-executive Director responsibility for the conduct of business of the Company - notice dated 19.02.2001 was issued by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate to decide as to whether the adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 should be held against the Directors for contravention - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not submitted any reply to show cause notice dated 19.02.2001 which though was addressed to the Company and all Directors and the reply was sent only by the Company Secretary on 26.03.2001. The representation dated 29.10.2003 was the first representation submitted by the appellant before the adjudicating officer during course of personal hearing. What is said by a person who is called for personal hearing even though gi....... + More

  ---

• 2020 (3) TMI 1103
  
  Organisation of a political nature as barred from receiving foreign contributions - Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 as violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 of the Constitution of India - Guidelines for declaration of an organisation to be an organisation of a political nature not being a political party are found in Rule 3 of the Rules - principal challenge of the Appellant-organisation to Section 5 (1) of the Act is on the ground that the terms ‘activity, ideology and programme’ are vague and have not been defined in the Act which result in conferring unbridled and unfettered power on the executive. Therefore, the Appellant-organisation contended that Section 5 (1) is violative ....... + More

  ---

• 2020 (3) TMI 1102
  
  Violation of provisions of Section 10(6) of the FEMA Act - Responsibility of Authorised person - goods had arrived in India, but the Company failed to submit Bill of Entry and did not take delivery of the goods - goods not released and as such kept in bonded warehouse - defence of the appellant that he could not be made responsible for the stated contravention. For, he became the Managing Director of the Company much later i.e. on 22.10.2001 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the finding of fact is that the import of goods for which the foreign exchange was procured and remitted was not completed as the Bill of Entry remained to be submitted and the goods were kept in the bonded warehouse and the Company took no steps to clear the same. As a result, Section 10(6) of the FEMA Act is clearly attracted being a case of not using the procured ....... + More

  ---

• 2019 (10) TMI 672
  
  Violation of provisions under FCRA, 1976 - foreign contribution received by the respondent-petitioner - HC quashed the FIR - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegtions made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Cou....... + More

  ---

• 2019 (8) TMI 139
  
  Hawala transactions - Detention order - smuggling of foreign origin gold by a syndicate of persons from UAE to India - the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold were siphoned off to Dubai through hawala. - Offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Whether the orders of detention were vitiated on the ground that relied upon documents were not served along with the orders of detention and grounds of detention? - Whether there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act? Whether the High Court was right in quashing the detention orders merely on the ground that the detaining authority has not expressly satisfied itself about the imminent possibility of the detenues being released on bail? HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the order of dete....... + More

  ---

• 2019 (4) TMI 1355
  
  Offence under FEMA - writ petition in the High Court against the Union of India and sought therein a writ of mandamus claiming refund of the pre-deposit amount - High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order of the Adjudicating Authority - Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the Union of India. HELD THAT:- High Court did not examine the case of the parties in the context of material placed by the appellants, though the Tribunal in Para 29 of its order has considered the said material. High Court should have taken into consideration the said material with a view to decide as to whether it was relevant or/and sufficient, and whether it could justify the appellants’ case as contemplated under Section 8 of FEMA. High Court seemed to have proceeded on wrong as....... + More

  ---

• 2019 (4) TMI 592
  
  Detention orders u/s 3 read with Section 12A of COFEPOSA - orders made during the period of Emergency proclaimed under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India - grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in a language known to him - notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to show cause why properties be not declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of SAFEMA - HELD THAT:- In the present case the order of detention under COFEPOSA was passed on 19.12.1974 and the petition challenging the detention was filed on 29.04.1975 i.e. before the proclamation of emergency was issued on 25.06.1975. The detenu was released after the lifting of the emergency. All through, the Writ Petition was alive and pending in High Court and it was disposed of as having become infructuous ....... + More

  ---

• 2019 (1) TMI 1502
  
  Maintainability of appeal before Special Director (Appeals) - proper appellate authority for deciding the appeals filed after repeal of FERA on 01.06.2000 against the order passed under Section 51 of FERA - contravention of Sections 9 (1) (a), 9(1)(c) and Section 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - imports and exports of certain commodities made with two foreign parties, viz., M/s Fingrain, S.A., Geneva and M/s Continental Grain Export Corporation, New York - whether appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement (Adjudicating Officer) under Section 51 of FERA read with FEMA would lie only to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of FEMA but not before the Special Director (Appeals) under Section 17 of FERA? Held that:- Any appeal filed after 01.06.2000 against the order of the Adjudicating Office....... + More

  ---

• 2017 (8) TMI 671
  
  Illegally acquired property within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA - whether tenancy of a property, ownership of which is acquired by a person to whom the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) applies, will be treated as “illegally acquired property” within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA and can be subjected to forfeiture under the provisions thereof? - Held that:- In the present case, it is undisputed that only adjudication which has taken place by the competent authority is that the property was owned by the person to whom the Act applied i.e. against whom the order of detention had been confirmed. The rights of the appellants, who claim to be bona fide tenants even prior to purchase of the property by the person to whom the Act applied, have not been adjudicated upon ....... + More

  ---

• 2017 (8) TMI 574
  
  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 Court considered the matter and held as clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 56(1) are material for deciding the quantum of punishment and further, there is no reason why the expression “in any other case” in Section 56(1)(ii) should be given any restrictive meaning to the effect that it must be in relation to the money value involved, as has been done by the Kerala High Court. The summons issued under ....... + More

  ---

• 2017 (1) TMI 398
  
  Principle of segregation - Detention order - Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - High Court has come to the conclusion that there were various grounds which formed the basis of the detention order and even if the documents pertaining to one particular ground were not furnished, that ground could be ignored applying the principle of segregation and on remaining grounds the detention order was still sustainable - whether the principle of severability of grounds, which is enshrined in Section 5A of the Act, is not applicable to the case at hand as the detention order was passed on one ground only? - Held that:- Each 'basic fact' would constitute a ground and particulars in support thereof or the details would be subsidiary facts or further particulars of the said bas....... + More

  ---

• 2016 (6) TMI 341
  
  Offence punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act - Held that:- The tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant cannot be held guilty for Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 and the advise of the Reserve Bank of India given in its letters dated 21.1.1992 and 18.2.1994 deserve to be accepted as they are totally in consonance with legal provisions. The High Court, without an assail to the order passed by the tribunal, has adverted to the same and opined that it does not subscribe to the view expressed by the tribunal that Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act were not applicable to the transaction in question. The High Court could not have done that. We may note with profit that the High Cou....... + More

  ---

• 2016 (5) TMI 740
  
  Confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty - Clauses (d), (e) and (i) of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Seizure of US dollars - Import of currency as advance payments towards supply of diamonds - absence of requisite permission of Reserve Bank of India - Held that:- the greater significance and important is the absence of any special or general permission as contemplated under Section 8(1) of FERA. No such permission is produced or relied upon. In fact, that is not even the case that Jatin Jhaveri had applied for and got such permission. For the purpose of Section 8(1) of FERA, “acquisition” of foreign exchange must be with general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Even if the matter of ‘bringing into India’ of the currency in question, as submitted by Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate, is t....... + More

  ---

• 2016 (5) TMI 518
  
  Preventive detention passed against the detenue [husband of the appellant herein] as well as few other persons - Held that:- It has come on record and noted in the order of detention that large sums of money were received in the said bank account which was opened in the name of the detenue and the money which was disbursed from this account amounted to ₹ 40.52 crores. It was further found by the detaining authority that the detenue was also one of the persons involved in Hawala transactions which were carried out. In such circumstances, satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain the detenue cannot be faulted with.

  ---

• 2015 (12) TMI 1527
  
  Detention orders under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - non opportunity to assail the order of his detention - Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent, that the order of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act was passed on 11.6.1976. Immediately after the passing of the aforesaid order, on the same day, the Government of Gujarat issues a declaration under Section 12A, with reference to the detention of the appellant. Again, on the lifting of the emergency on 21.3.1977, the declaration under Section 12A ceased to be operative, with reference to the detention of the appellant. At the beginning of the order of detention, and at the time of revocation thereof, whilst the detention order subsisted only within the limited scope o....... + More

  ---

• 2015 (12) TMI 1192
  
  Validity of detention order - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - Held that:- Since the Detaining Authority was represented by the officers at the time of hearing of the petitioner's case before the Advisory Board, the petitioner too was entitled to be represented through legal practitioner. Since no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner though claimed by him, he was denied an opportunity of a fair hearing before the Advisory Board, which eventually resulted in passing an adverse order. - as would be clear from Para 3 of the counter affidavit, that the officers had appeared in the case before the Advisory Board and participated in the proceedings against the petitioner whereas the petitioner was denied such facility. This infirmity, being fatal, renders the impugned orde....... + More

  ---

• 2015 (8) TMI 187
  
  Violation of provisions of Sections 47(1) & (2), 9(1)(c) and 8(1) - Permission from RBI for advertisement of ‘Kingfisher’ brand name on racing cars during Formula-I World Championships - Failure to appear against the summon issued - Held that:- Complaint is maintainable if there is default in not carrying out summons lawfully issued. The averments in the complaint show that the summons dated 21st December, 1999 were refused by the appellant and earlier summons were not carried out deliberately. - From the tenor of the letter, it appears that it was not a case of mere seeking accommodation by the appellant but requiring date to be fixed by his convenience. Such stand by a person facing allegation of serious nature could hardly be appreciated. Obviously, the enormous money power makes him believe that the State should adjust its affairs to ....... + More

  ---

12345........ 6