Feedback   New User   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
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA SC FEMA - SC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 116 Records

  • 2006 (1) TMI 606 - SUPREME COURT

    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR Versus M/s KANAK EXPORTS & ANR.

    ... ...
    ... ... e Court, he would be entitled to file revised entitlement. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The appellant to file informal paper books consisting the records of lower courts. The paper books may be prepared in any way not necessarily by printing.


  • 2006 (1) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT

    M/s. KANAK EXPORTS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    ... ...
    ... ... e Court, he would be entitled to file revised entitlement. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The appellant to file informal paper books consisting the records of lower courts. The paper books may be prepared in any way not necessarily by printing.


  • 2005 (10) TMI 501 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Naresh Kumar Goyal Versus Union of India and others

    Whether the High Court was justified in law in not exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage? - Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to accept the submission that the order was passed for a wrong purpose. Apparently the order has been passed with a view to prevent the appellant from smuggling goods or abe....... + More


  • 2004 (2) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT

    Union of India and Ors. Versus Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors.

    Whether order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short the SAFEMA ) against respondent nos. 1 and 2 was not sustainable in law? - Whether the order of detention could be challenged subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition on the ground that it had become unfructuous? - Held that - SAFEMA applies when the revocati....... + More


  • 2003 (7) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT

    Smt. Kesar Devi Versus Union of India & Ors

    Whether the notice issued by the competent authority satisfies the requirement of Section 6? - Held that - Kesar Devi has never been assessed to tax nor has she ever filed her return of income. Kesar Devi is the holder of house property D-48, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. Kesar Devi, in her statement on 22.7.1976 before Sh. S.P. Gupta, Inspector, Jaipur has stated that she purchased the plot of land D-48, Bapu Nagar, about 13 years back and immediately the....... + More


  • 2003 (1) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT

    FATIMA MOHD. AMIN Versus UOI.

    Why forfeiture of one-tenth property of the appellant shall not be effected? - Held that - As going through the reasons recorded by the Competent Authority alongwith the show cause notice no averments found to the effect that the property acquired by the appellant is a benami property of her son or the same was illegally acquired from her son. - The contents of the said notices, even if taken at their face value do not disclose any reason warrant....... + More


  • 2000 (9) TMI 1040 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    P. SARAVANAN Versus STATE OF TN. & ORS.

    ... ...
    ... ... nst this petitioner and accordingly we quash the same. We order petitioner to be set at liberty if his further detention is attributable only to the detention order challenged in the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.


  • 2000 (9) TMI 1000 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus ARVIND SHERGILL & ANR.

    Whether the circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint on a person? - Held that - Appeal allowed. When the period of detention itself had expired 13 years earlier, then this Court came to the conclusion as aforesaid. Husband of the respondent evaded arrest as is obvious and obtained an interim order from the High Court which was in force till the disposal of the writ petition and thereafter on quashing of the detention order questi....... + More


  • 2000 (5) TMI 586 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Versus M. SAMBA SIVA RAO

    Whether refusal on the part of a person, who is summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to comply with the directions under the summons, would attract the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? - Held that - The ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the impugned Judgment that the Union of India can prosecute the accused for offences under the provisions of Section 174 or any other ....... + More


  • 2000 (3) TMI 1070 - SUPREME COURT

    RAJAPPA NEELAKANTAN Versus STATE OF TN.

    Detenu challenging the order of detention passed against him on 2.8.99 under the COFEPOSA - Held that - The detention order in respect of the present petitioner should be based principally on the facts centerd on what he had done in collaboration with his co-traveler. The detaining authority cannot be said to be totally ignorant of the fact that Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was also detained under a separate order, for, the aforesaid detention order....... + More


  • 2000 (2) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    SUNIL FULCHAND SHAH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

    Whether the period of detention is a fixed period running from the date specified in the detention order and ending with the expiry of that period or the period is automatically extended by any period or parole granted to the detenu? - Held that - Appeal allowed. Harish Makhija, Poonam Lata and Pushpa Devi do not lay down the correct law on the point. I further hold that if the period of detention is interrupted either by an order of provisional ....... + More


  • 1999 (3) TMI 633 - Supreme Court of India

    UNION OF INDIA Versus ABDUL MOHAMED

    ... ...
    ... ... . In the aforesaid premises, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Board and affirmed by the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The amount of penalty, if deposited, may be refunded to the respondent.


  • 1998 (7) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    KARIMABEN K. BAGAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

    Order of detention revoked - Held that - Since, the validity of the order of detention had been put in issue through a writ petition and the High Court returned no findings on the merits of the case, the petitioner was entitled to question the order of detention while assailing the proceedings initiated under SAFEMA against her. To deny her that right on the ground that after twenty years the challenge to the order of detention could not be recei....... + More


  • 1998 (5) TMI 398 - SUPREME COURT

    SMF. SULTAN ABDUL KADER Versus JOINT SECY. TO GOVT. OF INDIA

    ... ...
    ... ... exercise of the power vested in him. We, therefore, allow this petition, set aside and quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in jail in connection with any other case.


  • 1998 (4) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT

    COMPETENT AUTHORITY AHMEDABAD Versus AMRITLAL CHANDMAL JAIN

    Whether the order of detention passed against the first respondent Amritlal Chandmal Jain ( Amritlal ) under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA ) was illegal? - Held that - When there is challenge to the legality of detention in writ of habeas corpus the challenge is in effect to the legality and validity of the grounds on which the order of detention is made....... + More


  • 1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT

    CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CBI Versus VC. SHUKLA & ORS.

    Whether the entries in the documents fulfil the requirements so as to be admissible in evidence? - Held that - From a combined reading of the all Sections it is manifest that an oral or documentary statement made by a party or his authorised agent, suggesting any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact may be proved against a party t the proceeding or his authorised agent as admission but, apart form exceptional cases (as contained in ....... + More


  • 1997 (11) TMI 100 - SUPREME Court

    Aamenabai Tayebaly And Others Versus Competent Authority, Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture Of Property) Act, 1976, And Others

    Whether the provisions of the SAFEMA apply to the sale transaction entered into between the widow of Talab Haji Hussein, COFEPOSA detenu and the purchaser, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants? - Whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice? - Whether the forfeiture of purchaser s flat in Dharam Jyoti Building by the authorities can be treated as double forfeiture on the basis of the same tainted money of the COFE....... + More


  • 1996 (5) TMI 413 - SUPREME COURT

    PTR. EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. & ORS. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Whether the Government is bound by the previous policy or whether it can revise its policy in view of the changed potential foreign markets and the need for earning foreign exchange? - Held that - Grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the licence. The Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision woul....... + More


  • 1994 (8) TMI 267 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    SUBHASH MULJIMAL GANDHI Versus L. HIMINGLIANA

    Whether a detenu or anyone on his behalf is entitled to challenge an order of detention without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it and, if so, what will be the nature, scope and extent of such challenge? - Held that - Appeal dismissed. It is undoubtedly true that an unusual delay in execution of an order of detention if not satisfactorily explained, may persuade the court to draw such an inference. There is, however, no scope for drawing....... + More


  • 1994 (5) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT

    Attorney General For India Versus Amratlal Prajivandas

    Whether Parliament was not competent to enact COFEPOSA and SAFEMA? - Whether an order of detention under Section 3 read with Section 12-A of COFEPOSA made during the period of emergency proclaimed under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India, with the consequent suspension of Article 19 and during which period the right to move the court to enforce the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 was suspended can form the foundation for takin....... + More


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

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

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

Go to Mobile Version