2017 (8) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shabnam Arora Versus Union of India & Anr.
Detention orders - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( COFEPOSA Act ) against the husband of the petitioner - Held that - No ground to interfere with the impugned order oh HC 2017 (7) TMI 73 - DELHI HIGH COURT . SLP dismised. - HC has held that as 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 ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT
Domnic Alex Fernandes (D) Through Lrs. & Others Versus Union Of India And Others
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 ....... + More
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 (1) TMI 398 - SUPREME COURT
Gautam Jain Versus Union of India & Another
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 detenti....... + More
2016 (6) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT
M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. Another Versus State of Maharshtra & Others
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 ....... + More
2016 (5) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT
Jatin C Jhaveri Versus Union Of India And Vice-Versa
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 pr....... + More
2016 (5) TMI 518 - SUPREME COURT
V. Suganthi Versus Joint Secretary To Govt. Of India & Anr
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 o....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1527 - SUPREME COURT
Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi and another Versus State of Gujarat and others
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 is....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1192 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Choith Nanikram Harchandani and Bittu Choith Harchandani Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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 o....... + More
2015 (8) TMI 187 - SUPREME COURT
Vijay Mallya Versus Enforcement Directorate, Min. of Finance
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....... + More
2015 (1) TMI 929 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Opera House Exports Ltd. Versus Union of India
Condonation of delay - whether for the purpose of counting delay in appeals against orders of adjudicating officer to the Appellate Board, the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 or Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 shall apply - Held that - The impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11.08.2007. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant and was not disputed by respondents that the said adjudication order was....... + More
2015 (1) TMI 883 - SUPREME COURT
KK. Kuda Versus Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate & Another
Credit of Non-convertible Rupee Funds into the Non-Resident (External) Account of the person concerned - contravention of Section 6(4), 6(5) read with S.49 of FERA - Act done by consent, connivance of and attributable to the negligence on the part of the Officials - Held that - The crediting of Non-Convertible Rupee Funds in the Non-Resident (External) Account of Dr. P.K.Ramakrishnan happened during the period August to December, 1991. Three offi....... + More
2014 (10) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT
A. Tajudeen Versus Union of India
Violation of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Confiscation of seized amount - Imposition of penalty - Appellate Board set aside confiscation and ordered refund of penalty whereas High Court upheld the same - Held that - There is no doubt whatsoever, that no reliance has been placed on the alleged statement made by the appellant on 20.4.1989 before the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, in the memorandum dated 1....... + More
2014 (5) TMI 288 - SUPREME COURT
LICIL Antony Versus State of Kerala & Another
Order of detention - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (COFEPOSA) - delay in passing the orders - Held that - We must bear in mind that distinction exists between the delay in making of an order of detention under a law relating to preventive detention like COFEPOSA and the delay in complying with procedural safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In view of the factual scenar....... + More
2014 (1) TMI 1348 - SUPREME COURT
Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Peter Kerkar Versus Special Director of Enforcement
Violation of FEMA - Imposition of penalty - Sale of foreign currency at higher value - Held that - there was no scope to allege a violation of paragraph 3 of the FLM or for that matter Sections 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA, 1973. Based on the interpretation of Sections 6(4), 6(5) of FERA, 1973 and paragraphs 3 & 9 of the FLM, we have held that the Original Authority, the Appellate Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of the High Court failed to ap....... + More
2013 (10) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT
Kamlesh Kumar & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others
Jurisdiction of special judge - Transfer of case from the Magistrate to the Special Judge - Held that - it is apparent from a reading of Section 56 of the FERA as also Section 61 of the FERA that exclusive jurisdiction has not been conferred on the Magistrate to try cases relating to a violation of the provisions of the FERA. Absent jurisdictional exclusivity, the principle of law laid down in Antulay is not applicable and the Special Judge could....... + More
2013 (7) TMI 505 - SUPREME COURT
Union of India Versus ABN Amro Bank and others
FDI - foreign investment for Service Sector - Nature and business of the company - whether the company was a trading company and also whether it was primarily engaged in export for availing of the automatic route - Held that - If a new trading company indulging in export primarily also will have to make an application to the RBI for automatic approval for foreign investment upto 51 foreign equity and the thrust would be on export activities. - Re....... + More
2013 (5) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT
Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Union of India And Another
Writ petition against the reviewed policy of FDI in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading, Multi-Brand Retail Trading, Air Transport Services, Broadcasting Carriage Services and Power Exchanges. As per petitioner that the impugned FDI Policy is not founded on any material obtained from the government agency and no extensive consultation was made before formulation of the impugned Policy. - Held that - DIPP is empowered to make policy pronouncements....... + More
2013 (2) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT
M/s Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Special Director of Enforcement
Violation of FERA - Whether process of purchase of tickets of appellant was a commercial arrangement that was legally permissible? - Appellant carries on a travel agency and specialises in booking of tickets for crew members working on ships - assessee contested for suffering from any illegality or material irregularity causing prejudice - Held that - No such illegality or irregularity has been demonstrated. That apart delayed pronouncement of th....... + More
2013 (2) TMI 189 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
REKHA Versus STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. & ANR
Preventive Detention order - Held that - If the ordinary law of the land (the Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal. - There seems to be conflict between the decisions cited by Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants, and the decisions cited by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel l appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the matt....... + More
Search 
