2012 (12) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others Versus Hindustan National Glass & Ind. Ltd. & Others
Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters - dis-closer of information by the Bank to RBI - Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts) Regulations, 2000 - held that - no force in the submission that any information relating to a party who has defaulted in payment of its dues under derivative transactions cannot be disclosed by a bank to the RBI or any other bank because of an implied contract between the bank and its customer o....... + More
2012 (10) TMI 506 - SUPREME COURT
Winston Tan & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr.
SAFEMA - notice in respect of illegal flat to assessee and his wife holding 50 per cent share in the subject property - whether appellants who purchased the subject flat during pendency of forfeiture proceedings are entitled to an opportunity to prove that they are transferees in good faith for adequate consideration ? - Held that - Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) came into effect from 05.11....... + More
2012 (7) TMI 710 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Union of India Versus S. Srinivasan
Ultra vires - whether Rule 5 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (Recruitment, Salary and Allowances and Other Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2000 is ultra vires the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that - The High Court had quashed the appointment of part time Members and the appointment of Chairperson who was a part time Member once. As the appointment of part time Member was quashed, as a logica....... + More
2012 (7) TMI 202 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DROPTI DEVI Versus UNION OF INDIA
Constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( COFEPOSA ) to the extent it empowers the competent authority to make an order of detention against any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange - petitioner contending that repeal of FERA and enactment of FEMA (FEMA did not regard it....... + More
2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ketan V. Parekh Versus Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another.
Condonation of delay - the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be extended to the appellants.- After having made a prayer that the writ petitions filed by them be treated as appeals under Section 35, two of the appellants filed applications for recall of that order. No doubt, the learned Single Judge accepted their prayer and the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but the manner in which the appellants p....... + More
2011 (4) TMI 489 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA
Whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the FEMA, 1999 was right in rejecting a belated appeal filed under Section 19 of FEMA, applying the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 52 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that the right of appeal under FEMA has already been saved in respect of cause of action which arose under FERA however subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 19, in the case of belated appeal....... + More
2011 (2) TMI 154 - Supreme Court of India
Radheshyam Kejriwal Versus State of West Bengal
Foreign exchange - Search and seizure - Prosecution and penalty - appellant submits that the standard of proof required to bring home the charge in a criminal case is much higher than in the adjudication proceedings and once the appellant has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings, his prosecution is an abuse of the process of court. - Held that - in a statute relating to economic offences, there is no reason to restrict the scope of any....... + More
2011 (2) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HUSSNAIN INTERNATIONAL Versus UNION OF INDIA
Waiver of pre-deposit - quantum of pre-deposit - The appellant failed to discharge its export obligation under the licences - The Adjudicating Authority imposing a penalty - The appellant failed to make the pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and consequently the appeals were dismissed - The Division Bench of the High Court passed the impugned order allowing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/for each of the appeals - The Division Bench of....... + More
2011 (1) TMI 1269 - Supreme Court of India
UMMU SABEENA Versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Whether the representations filed on behalf of the detenus were not disposed of in accordance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution? - Whether the manner of consideration and rejection of representation by the Central Government is in accord with the principles laid down by this Court on this aspect in several cases?....... + More
2010 (10) TMI 156 - Supreme Court of India
Kanwar Natwar Singh & Kanwar Jagat Singh Versus Directorate of Enforcement
Foreign exchange Adjudication acquisition of foreign exchange without RBI permission - spending of foreign exchange without RBI permission - Notice to show cause - Held that The appellants insisted for supply of all documents in the possession of the authority and such demand is based on vague, indefinite and irrelevant grounds. The appellants are not sure as to whether they are asking for the copies of the documents in possession of the adjudica....... + More
2010 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT
RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE Versus ASSTT. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Writ Jurisdiction- Interlocutory order- The appellant, along with another person, were issued a notice under Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) for receiving unauthorized payments worth ₹ 5 crores under instructions from persons living outside India in connection with his illegal cricket betting operation. He was also asked to explain why the amount of ₹ 1 lac, confiscated during search from his residence....... + More
2009 (7) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT
NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS Versus HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Whether the High Court/Supreme Court has the power to transfer a suit from a Civil Court to the DRT? - Whether Article 142 is applicable to direct a transfer from a Civil Court to DRT, especially when the DRT Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit against a bank and therefore powers under Article 142 ought not to be exercised to have such an effect or Article 142 is not applicable where a statute occupies the fie....... + More
2008 (12) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT
VINOD SOLANKI Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
What would be the effect of a retracted confession for the purpose of levy of penalty under FERA, 1973 - violation of Section 8(3) and 9(1)(a) - remittance of the foreign exchange worth US Dollars - no reliance should be placed on the retracted confessional statement unless the same was corroborated by some independent evidence - order of the Tribunal and HC cannot be sustained assessee s appeal is allowed - amount which is with the Department sh....... + More
2008 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT
Deepak Bajaj Versus State of Maharashtra & Another
Whether the detention order dated 22.05.2008 passed against the petitioner, Deepak Gopaldas Bajaj, resident of Mumbai under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is correct?....... + More
2008 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
M/s. Seema Silk & Sarees & Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
FEMA - Constitutional validity of Section 18(2) and (18(3) of the FERA - Held that A legal provision does not become unconstitutional only because it provides for a reverse burden. - Commercial expediency or auditing of books of accounts cannot be a ground for questioning the constitutional validity of an Act. If the Parliamentary Act is valid and constitutional, the same cannot be declared ultra vires only because the appellant faces some diffic....... + More
2006 (11) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT
HARSHALA SANTOSH PATIL Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Whether order of detention dated 21-7-2005 passed against the detenu under S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( the COFEPOSA Act )cannot be sustained?....... + More
2006 (8) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT
SHEETAL MANOJ GORE Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
Whether order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on January 27, 2006 valid?....... + More
2006 (8) TMI 521 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vinod K. Chawla Versus Union of India & Ors.
Detention order passed on 12.2.1997 under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Where a person himself evades service of detention order, it is not open to him to contend that in view of the long period which has elapsed between the offending activities and the actual arrest and detention, the vital link had snapped and there was no ground for a....... + More
2006 (7) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
Ibrahim Nazeer Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Dismissal of habeas corpus petition filed by one Rizwana Ziyath seeking release of her husband, the present appellant Ibrahim Nazeer ( detenu ) who was detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison of Chennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Held that - Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only....... + More
2006 (2) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Whether in a case where an offence was punishable with a mandatory sentence of imprisonment, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, can be prosecuted, as the sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed on the company? - Held that - Merely because the expression punished is used, it does not mean that it is confined to a prosecution under Section 56 of the Act, since the element that attracts the imposition of penalty and the prosecution i....... + More