Advanced Search Options
FEMA - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 115 of 115 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.
- 1980 (9) TMI 270 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was any breach of the requirements of Article 22 clause (5) of the Constitution and Section 3, sub-section (3) of the COFEPOSA Act, for that is the breach which is claimed by the petitioner as invalidating the continued detention of the detenue? Held that:- The time of 12 days taken up by the Assistant Collector of Customs was therefore unreasonably long for which no explanation at all was forthcoming from the detaining authority. We must in the circumstances hold that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the detaining authority in supplying to the detenu copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention and the continued detention of the detenu was accordingly illegal and void and the detenu was entitled to be released forthwith from detention. It is also necessary to poi....... + More
- 1980 (6) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the grounds of detention were couched in English, a language which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds were not explained to him? Held that:- The service of the ground of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex-facie. Section ll of the Act confers a constitutional right on the detenu to have his representation considered by the Central Government. It is true that the Central Government has a discretion to revoke or confirm the detention but the detenu has undoubtedly a right that his representation should be consi....... + More
- 1980 (2) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the representation requesting the Central Government to order the revocation under S. 11 of the Act was not forwarded by the detaining authority to the Central Government and as such the detention is illegal? Held that:- It is clear that a representation properly addressed by the detenu to the Central Government was not forwarded to the Central Government and as such no action had been taken up to date. As to what will be the consequence if a properly addressed petition is not forwarded to the Central Government and as such left unattended for a period of nearly four months. We feel that in such circumstances the detention cannot be justified as being according to the procedure. In the circumstances we do not feel that we will be justified in sending the representation to the Central Government for disposal at this stage & feel that the continued detention of the detenu cannot be held to be according to procedure. Petition allowed.
- 1980 (2) TMI 256 - SUPREME COURT
Writ of Habeas Corpus for release of detentu Held that:- Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and explanation furnished by the detaining authority, we are of the view that the detaining authority failed to act with reasonable expedition in furnishing the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention. On the facts of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the detention is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. The continued detention is not warranted. The order of his release has already been issued by this Court.
- 1979 (5) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of an order of detention challenged - Held that:- It is amply clear from the record that the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the 1st respondent before he confirmed the order of detention. The 1st respondent thus failed to comply with the constitutional obligation imposed upon him under clause (5) of E: Art. 22. The subsequent consideration and rejection of the representation could not cure the invalidity of the order of confirmation. The detention of the petitioner must, therefore, be held to be illegal and void. These were the reasons for which we made our order dated 11th April, 1979 quashing and setting aside the detention of the petitioner and directing that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.
- 1978 (12) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT
Detention orders - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. If the detenu wanted any more particulars such as the name of the intelligence officer or other information, he could have well asked for the particulars before making his representation. That he never did. It was not as if any privilege had been claimed by the Government in respect of the intelligence reports. In fact, we find that the intelligence reports were produced before the learned Judges of the High Court at the hearing of the Writ Petition there. There was no complaint before us that the detenu or his Counsel wanted to peruse the reports and were denied the opportunity of doing so. We do not think that the detenu could be said to have been denied a reasonable opportunity of making a representation merely because particulars which he neyer desired in respect of a ground which was not vague were not furnished to him. We are unable to see any force in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the detenu.
- 1978 (11) TMI 153 - SUPREME COURT
Smuggling of Cargo of contraband goods - detention orders - Held that:- It is quite clear from the facts set out in the grounds of detention, that the appellant was the person who was actually engaged in the act of smuggling of the contraband stainless steel rolls into the Indian customs waters. It is, therefore, clear that for all intents and purposes the appellant was the actual smuggler and not a mere abettor. Furthermore, the activities of the appellant were such that his case would be covered by both clauses (i) and (ii) of s. 3(1) of the Act. Thus, there was due application of mind. It is manifest that the appellant could in the instant case be detained under sub-s.(1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 both under clauses (i) and (ii) thereof. In any case, even assuming t....... + More
- 1978 (11) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT
Detenu release orders - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Questions whether the confessional statements recorded on December 13 and 14, 1977 were voluntary statements or were statements which were obtained from the detenu under duress or whether the subsequent retraction of those statements by the detenu on December 22, 1977 was in the nature of an after thought, were primarily for the detaining authority to consider before deciding to issue the impugned detention order but since admittedly the aforesaid vital facts which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other were neither placed before nor considered by the detaining authority it must be held that there was non application of mind to the most material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby rendering the impugned detention order invalid and illegal. For these reasons we set aside the impugned detention order.
- 1976 (4) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT
Article 21 furnishes the guarantee of "Lex", which is equated with statute law only, and not of "jus" spheres of executive and legislative and judicial powers with regard to personal liberty and preventive detention.
- 1975 (3) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 violates article 14 of the Constitution? Held that:- We do not think that there is any merit in the contention that the classification made in section 23(1A) is discriminatory. Even according to the respondents, it is the classification made in section 23(1)(a) which is under-inclusive and is, therefore, unreasonable. If this court were to declare that the classification made in section 23(1)(a) is under-inclusive and, therefore, unreasonable, the result would be that contraventions of the provisions specified in section 23(1)(a) would also fall within section 23(1A) and would have to be dealt with by the criminal court—a consummation which the respondents devotedly want to avoid. We do not think that the High Court was right in holding that section 23(1A) was bad. Appeal allowed.
- 1971 (12) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
words 'considers it necessary' - meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, be think oneself. to reflect'
- 1970 (8) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
Order of acquittal set aside - Held that:- While imposing sentence a Court might take notice of the fact that a person is being vicariously punished for an offence and if he shows that it is possible that the contravention of the Act took place without his knowledge or neglect a sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed. In this case he was abroad at the time of contravention and it is possible that the contravention took place without his knowledge or because of lack of diligence. It seems to us that on the facts of this case a sentence of fine of ₹ 2,000/- will meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the respondent State urges that this is not a case fit for review because it is only a case of mistaken judgment. But we are unable to agree with this submission because at the time of the arguments our attention was not d....... + More
- 1970 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ..... ge or neglect a sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed. In this case he was abroad at the time of contravention and it is possible that the contravention took place without his knowledge or because of lack of diligence. It seems to us that on the facts of this case a sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/-will meet the ends of justice. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent State urges that this is not a case fit for review because it is only a case of mistaken judgment. But we are unable to agree with this submission because at the time of the arguments our attention was not drawn specifically to Sub-section 23C(2) and the light it throws on the interpretation of Sub-section (1). 16. In the result the review petition is partly allowed and the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1969 modified to the extent that the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment imposed on Girdharilal is set aside. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/-shall, however, stand.
- 1969 (7) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT
Whether s. 23(1)(b) of the Act is ultra rites Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it provides for a punishment heavier and severer than the punishment or penalty provided for the same acts under s. 23(1)(a) of the Act? Even if s. 23 ( 1 ) (b) is not void, the complaint in respect of the offences punishable under that section has not been filed properly in accordance with the proviso to s. 23-D (1 ) of the Act, so that proceedings cannot be competently taken on the basis of that complaint? Charge of violation of R. 132-A(2) of the D.I. Rs. punishable under R. 132-A(4) of those Rules and is to the effect that R. 132-A of the D.I. Rs. was omitted by a notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th March, 1965 and, consequently, a prosecution in respect of an offence punishable under that Rule could not be instituted on 17th M....... + More
- 1965 (10) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether s. 23 (1) (a), having, been substituted by the Amending Act XXXIX of 1957, would have retrospective operation in respect of the alleged offence, which took place in 1954? Held that:- 23(1) (a) prescribes a minimum penalty while under the old s. 23(1) the Magistrate had an option of fixing a fine less than the minimum prescribed under s. 23 ( 1 ) (a). But we are unable to agree with him that the new section prescribes any minimum. What it does prescribe is a maximum. The words "not exceeding" cover not only the expression "three times the value of the foreign exchange" but also the words "five thousand rupees" Therefore, no greater penalty than might have-been levied under the old section has been prescribed by the new section 23 (1 ) (a), and consequently there is no breach of art. 20(1) of the Constitution. the offence is alleged....... + More