9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers under Section 19 of FEMA has the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order passed by the respondent on 24th September, 1999, under Section 19 read with Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "FERA") which was repealed with effect from 1st June, 2000 ? (b) Whether Section 49 of FEMA which provides for "Repeal and saving" in respect of FERA and which, inter alia, dissolves the Appellate Board constituted under Section 15(1) of FERA saves the revisional power conferred on the Appellate Board under FERA and confers the same on appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA in respect of orders passed under FERA ? (c) Whether the appellate Tribunal exercising the powers unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad received the amounts from an Indian Company for sale of the flats in the name of the directors of that Indian Company. 3) On receiving information that the said directors of Galani Infin Pvt. Ltd. were non resident Indians (NRI), proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short) were initiated. In his statement recorded under Section 40 of FERA on 9th September, 1996 and 12th September, 1996, the appellant stated that Satish Galani and Kamal Galani were persons residing outside India. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 13th November, 1997 alleging that the appellant had received payment on behalf of persons who were residing outside India without any previous general or special exemption from the Rese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority to file the revision petition, treated the petition as suo motu revision petition and after allowing the same imposed penalty of Rs.34 lacs on the appellant. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed. 6) While admitting the appeal on 29th April, 2009, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit Rs.7.50 lacs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master with directions to the Prothonotary to invest the same. Accordingly, the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs.7.50 lacs with the Prothonorary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. 7) Although several questions of law are raised in the appeal, Mr.J.J. Bhatt, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant restricted his argument only on the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. 9) We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10) Under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA, receiving any payment by order or on behalf of any person outside India, without the previous general or special exemption from the Reserve bank of India is prohibited. The question in the present case is, whether the appellant had received the amounts on behalf of the persons resident outside India ? 11) Apart from the statement of the appellant recorded on 9th September, 1996, there is no material on record to suggest that on the date of receiving the amount, the appellant was aware of the fact that the two directors of Galani Infin Pvt. Ltd. were resident outside India. Even from the statement recorded on 9th September, 1996, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
