Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA SC FEMA - SC This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 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 & Decision etc.


  • 1994 (5) TMI 235

    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


  • 1994 (2) TMI 301

    ... ...
    ... ... not find any infirmity in the said approach of the Division Bench of the High Court. SLP (Civil) Nos. 121-22 of 1994 are also liable to be dismissed. 23.In the result all the three special leave petitions filed by the petitioner (RMI) are dismissed.


  • 1992 (8) TMI 225

    Whether the Act is incompatible with the repealed Act i.e. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947? - Whether it manifested any contrary intentions to the repealed Act? - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that w....... + More


  • 1991 (12) TMI 269

    Whether there was an unreasonable delay in executing the order of detention from the date of passing of the detention order throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the petitioner/ - Held that - In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after passing the detention order was indifferent in securing the detenu by not....... + More


  • 1991 (10) TMI 303

    Whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and if so was there any material to show that there were compelling reasons to order detention inspire of his being in custody? - Held that - Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act provide for confiscation of improperly imported goods and exported goods respectively. The submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner being in custody in India can no mo....... + More


  • 1991 (8) TMI 330

    Whether failure on the part of the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government to accede to the request of the appellants to take out copies of the representations and forward the same to the Central Government for consideration has resulted in violation of their constitutional/statutory right to have their representation considered by the Central Government? - Whether the detention orders are liable to be quashed on that ground? - Held t....... + More


  • 1990 (12) TMI 216

    Whether the detenu or anyone on his behalf is entitled to challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it? - Held that - In the present case, admittedly the proposed detenu is absconding and has been evading the service of the detention order. The first respondent who is his wife has sought to challenge the said order because the show-cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA is issued to him,....... + More


  • 1989 (8) TMI 340

    Whether the past activities of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenu and its utility, therefore, lies only in so far as it subserves that purpose and it cannot be allowed to dominate or drawn it? - Held that - The representation of the detenu has not been given prompt and expeditious consideration, and was allowed to lie without being properly attended to. The explanation now off....... + More


  • 1989 (5) TMI 170

    ... ...
    ... ... he period intended by the statute. As the matter is of great public importance, and most cases of preventive detention are bound to be affected, we refer these cases to a Bench of five Hon rsquo ble Judges for reconsideration of the law on the point.


  • 1988 (12) TMI 180

    Quashing the said detention order - Held that - In the instant case as we have said hereinbefore that the bank pass books are not vital and material documents in reaching subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and as such the failure to f....... + More


  • 1988 (9) TMI 175

    Whether by reason of D.N. Capoor having passed the order of detention only in exercise of his special empowerment to act under Section 3(1) of the Act and not in exercise of any right given to him under the Rules of Business of the Government, he was under a constitutional obligation to communicate to and afford opportunity to the detenu to make a representation to himself in the first instance before the detenu availed of his right to make repre....... + More


  • 1988 (4) TMI 148

    Order of detention made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challneged - Held that - The learned Additional Solicitor General placed before us the grounds served on the petitioner, at some length, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner was running a business firm under the name and style of M/s. B.N. Corporation in Hong Kong as also offices in other places includ....... + More


  • 1987 (5) TMI 337

    Whether the word whoever in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957, denoted only a natural person and an association of persons, such as a firm, would not fall within the ....... + More


  • 1987 (4) TMI 477

    Whether the period of parole has to be excluded in reckoning the period of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act? - Held that - The legislative scheme, keeping the purpose of the statute and the manner of its fulfilment provided thereunder, would not justify entertaining of an application for release of a detenu on parole. Since in our view release on parole is not a matter of judicial determination, apparently no provision as c....... + More


  • 1987 (4) TMI 398

    Whether the impugned order of detention was based on no material inasmuch as R.C. Singh was not a gazetted officer of enforcement and, therefore, the statements recorded by him had no evidentiary value whether the statements recorded by him could be treated to be statements relatable to section 39(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and could still from the basis for such satisfaction? - Whether there was non-application of mind on the part....... + More


  • 1987 (3) TMI 241

    Preventive detention orders - Held that - Since the order of detention did not mention that the detenue in these cases was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases, this Court had to observe that there was d total absence of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing th....... + More


  • 1987 (1) TMI 396

    Applicability of section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 - Held that - Allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court quashing the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition by the original writ petitioner dism....... + More


  • 1986 (9) TMI 356

    Appeal made under section 23EE of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 dismissed - Held that - Appeal dismissed. There is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant con travened section 12(2) of the Act. The High Court committed no error in rejecting the appellant s submission.


  • 1986 (9) TMI 163

    Whether High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal on the findings that the order of the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any error of law? - Held that - The findings recorded by the Deputy Director Enforcement and the Appellate Authority leave no room for doubt that the appellant took delivery of goods himself when he was in U.S.A. and sold the same by private sale in a surreptitious manner disregarding the directions of the Reserve ....... + More


  • 1986 (2) TMI 334

    Whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA? - Held that - No one can dispute the right of the detaining authority to make an order of detention if on a consideration of the relevant material, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the appellant. But the question was whether the detaining authority applied its mind to relevant considerations. If it did not, the appellant would be ent....... + More


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| 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.