Landmark Judgments on FEMA Supreme Court of India Judgements
| 1 | RANA AYYUB Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 892 Judge Name: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.B. PARDIWALA crowdfunding campaign using an online crowdfunding platform “Ketto” – Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated inquiry under fema – Also, a complaint was lodged by a person (private complainant) in Ghaziabad for the offences u/ss. 403, 406, 418, 420 of IPC, s. 66D of IT Act, 418 and 420 IPC read with Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 4 of the Black Money Act. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner received an order under Section 37 of the fema read with Section 133(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 from the Mumbai Zonal Office of Date of decision : 07-02-2023 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/12/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 2 | VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,B.V. NAGARATHNA regulation 3 or regulation 8 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2015 [Notification No. fema 6 (R)/RB-2015, dated the 29th December, 2015] made under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and the conditions specified Date of decision : 02-01-2023 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/906/2016 |
| 3 | THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING COMPANY LIMITED – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 985 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant’s counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of fema does not provide an Date of decision : 14-10-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7170/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 4 | THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 840 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of fema does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum.” 7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in Date of decision : 20-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4956/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 5 | English मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer T. TAKANO Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 212 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SANJIV KHANNA indicate the nature of contravention alleged to have been committed by 20 “ fema Rules 2000” T. TAKANO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.] A B C D E F G H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. him. (3) After considering the cause, if any fema Rules 2000 indicates that in the first instance, the adjudicating authority has to issue a notice requiring the person to show cause why an enquiry should not be held against him. The stage of the notice under Rule 4(1) is not for adjudication but is for the purpose of deciding whether an Date of decision : 18-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/487/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 6 | ECGC LIMITED Vs MOKUL SHRIRAM EPC JV – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 155 Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN correct asthis Court held that Section 49 of fema does not seek to withdraw or take away the vested right of appeal in cases where proceedings were initiated prior to repeal of FERA on 01.06.2000 or after. The said judgment in fact held that liberal provision of condonation of delay as provided in the new Act would be applicable. It was held as under: “28. Above discussion will clearly demonstrate that Section 49 of fema does not seek to withdraw or take away the vested right of appeal in cases where proceedings were initiated prior to repeal of FERA on 01.06.2000 or after. On a combined Date of decision : 15-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1842/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 7 | AKSHAY N PATEL Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 13 S.C.R. 231 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,VIKRAM NATH,B.V. NAGARATHNA guidelines to authorized persons under fema . fema was introduced as an “Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to foreign exchange with the objective of facilitating external trade and payments and for promoting the orderly development and maintenance of foreign exchange market in India”. Hence, the role of the RBI under fema is directed towards ensuring that AKSHAY N PATEL v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. A B C D E F G H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 13 S.C.R. India’s foreign exchange market is regulated, with a view to preserving India’s foreign exchange reserves. On a Date of decision : 06-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6522/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 8 | AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC Vs FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 4 S.C.R. 771 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI fema FDI Rules, without the governmental approvals, this Court finds that FRL has made out a prima facie case in its favour for grant of interim injunction. However, the main tests in the present case are in respect of “balance of convenience” and “irreparable loss”. Even if a prima facie case Group. He also found that any so-called violations of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [“ fema ”] did not render the Emergency Arbitrator’s award a nullity, and therefore, issued a show- cause notice under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, after imposing Rs.20 lakh as Date of decision : 06-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4492/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 9 | ASHA JOHN DIVIANATHAN Vs VIKRAM MALHOTRA & ORS. – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 953 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,INDU MALHOTRA,AJAY RASTOGI while distinguishing the dispensation provided in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( fema ). The Court has noted that fema unlike FERA — refers to the nation’s policy of managing foreign exchange instead of policing foreign exchange, the policeman being RBI under FERA. Indeed, it is not a Date of decision : 26-02-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9546/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 10 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SHAILENDRA SWARUP Vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 89 Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,R. SUBHASH REDDY read with Section 3 and 4 of Section 49 of fema and fixed 22.10.2003 for personal hearing. Notice dated 08.10.2003 was sent to MXL and its Directors. Notice dated 08.10.2003 was replied by the appellant vide its detailed reply dated 29.10.2003. In the reply the appellant stated that he is a Adjudication proceeding as contemplated in Section 51 of FERA, 1973 read with Section 3 & 4 of section 49 of fema , 1999 should be held against you in accordance with the procedure SHAILENDRA SWARUP v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 100 Date of decision : 27-07-2020 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2463/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 11 | DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI & ANR. Vs M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. – [2020] 6 S.C.R. 486 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA dated (…) on the letter head of the company for the details of the project as Notification fema 95/2003- RB dated 2nd July, 2003 Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of Branch or Office or other place of business) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 along with the copy of letter from Date of decision : 22-07-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12183/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 12 | SUBORNO BOSE Vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 60 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI ), fema & Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi was dismissed – Appeal before High Court – Dismissed – Held: s.10(6) is a deeming provision pointing towards specified circumstances, which would result in having committed contravention of the provisions of the fema Act or for the purpose of the stated – When can be availed – Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 10(6) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is a deeming provision pointing towards the specified circumstances, which would result in having committed contravention of the provisions of the fema Act or Date of decision : 05-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6267/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 13 | INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 297 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN describe an elephant, but end up describing only one physical feature of the elephant. RBI was also caught in this dilemma. Nothing prevented RBI from adopting a short circuit by notifying VCs under the category of “other similar instruments” indicated in Section 2(h) of fema , 1999 which defines Date of decision : 04-03-2020 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/528/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 14 | VIJAY KARIA & ORS. Vs PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL & ORS. – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 336 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ) – Enforcement of foreign awards – Violation of provisions of fema – Whether amounts to breach of Public Policy of India – If a particular act violates any provision of fema or the Rules framed thereunder, permission of the Reserve Bank of India may be obtained post-facto if such violation can be condoned – Neither the award, nor the agreement being enforced by the award, can, therefore, be held to be of no effect in law – This being the case, a rectifiable breach under fema can never be held to be a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law – Further, even if the Reserve Bank of Date of decision : 13-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1544/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 15 | BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 289 Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT by the creation of dummy companies, realizing professional fees, creating bogus bills, selling flats at undervalue price, payment of excessive brokerage, etc. They have obtained investment from J.P. Morgan in violation of fema and FDI norms. The shares were overvalued for making payment to J.P also to IPFII Singapore in violation of the fema Rules and FDI Rules as found by the Auditors in the respective cases. [Para 93] [548-D-F] 4.6 The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and the Bankers have permitted diversion of funds of home–buyers and the possession of other assets by Amrapali Date of decision : 23-07-2019 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed not complying condition order | Direction Issue : Directions issued |
| 16 | RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS. Vs HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2019] 7 S.C.R. 976 Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,INDIRA BANERJEE (HQRL)”. It is relevant to mention here that it was held by the High Court of Bombay in CDS Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. v. BPL Communications Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 121 Comp Case 374, that RBI’s special permission under the special laws of fema will prevail over the provisions of the view in the matter of grant of interim injunction, was incorrect and erroneous. The findings in the impugned judgment are based entirely on the settled legal propositions. It was submitted that A B C D E F G H 997 the appellants’ reliance on fema is erroneous. It was further submitted Date of decision : 10-05-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3934/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 17 | NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI – [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1060 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI alongwith enclosures therein proceedi ngs against accused Zahoor Ahmed S hah W atali (A-10) under the fema Act. D-248 Letter No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI/354 dated 11.01.2018 from Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Inspector NIA (W -209) to CIO forwarding of report on international linkage, India Hit report and report on Date of decision : 02-04-2019 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/578/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 18 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FERA Vs M/s. PREMIER LIMITED (FORMERLY PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.) & ORS. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 551 Judge Name: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,INDIRA BANERJEE and 81 – Repeal of 1973 Act-FERA – Appeals filed thereafter against order passed u/s.51 of FERA – Proper appellate authority for deciding – Special Director (Appeals) u/s.17 of 1999 Act- fema (that replaced FERA) or Appellate Tribunal u/s.19 of fema – On 01.05.1991 show cause notice issued by the Special Director to respondent no.2 and its two directors, respondent nos.3 and 4 for allegedly contravening provisions of FERA– During the pendency of the proceedings, FERA was repealed w.e.f 01.06.2000 and replaced by fema – On 05.12.2003, adjudication order passed by the Deputy Director of Date of decision : 29-01-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3529/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 19 | B.K. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PARAG GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES – [2018] 12 S.C.R. 794 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA appeal has to be filed, its form and the period within which the same has to be filed are matters of procedure, while the right conferred on a party to file an appeal is a substantive right. The question is, while dealing with a belated appeal under Section 19(2) of fema , the application for condonation of delay has to be dealt with under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 52 of FERA or under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 19 of fema . For answering that question it is necessary to examine the law on the point. Substantive and procedural law 23. Substantive law Date of decision : 11-10-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/23988/2017 | Direction Issue : APPEALS REMANDED TO NCLAT |
| 20 | S. SUKUMAR Vs THE SECRETARY, INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 442 Judge Name: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT policy and the fema Regulations. Chartered Accountants Act, 1949: ss.25, 29 – Auditing – Role of auditor – Violation of statutory provisions by MAFs – Need for separate oversight body – Held: Failure of auditors have resulted into scandals in the past – Absence of adequate oversight mechanism Indian chartered accountancy firm. Relationship of partnership firms, though having Indian partners, operating under a common brand name from same infrastructure, with foreign entity is not ruled out. It is not possible to rule out violation of FDI policies, fema Regulations and the CA Act. Thus Date of decision : 23-02-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2422/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 21 | VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING LLC Vs TECH MAHINDRA LTD. & ANOTHER ETC. – [2017] 12 S.C.R. 259 Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE aside the award since it violates the provisions of fema Act and is against the public policy – However, High Court held that award is not against the public policy and restored the award – Whether the award impugned in s. 34 proceedings is vitiated on account of fraud, misrepresentation and ‘S’, as its Chairman violated several sections of IPC, Companies Act and fema ; and the arbitral proceedings due to the reason, which came to knowledge to all stakeholders of S including V subsequent to passing of the Award could not be said to have been held fairly or reasonably but were Date of decision : 01-11-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/17753/2017 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before Hon’ble CJI |
| 22 | GAUTAM JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2017] 1 S.C.R. 366 Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE the petitioner was recorded under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( fema , for short) wherein, he stated that the main work of the petitioner was GAUTAM JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. fA.K. SIKRI, 1.1 receiving and making payments in India on instructions from Sultan mentions gist of the statement of daughter of the petitioner i.e., Ms. Krishma Jain again recorded under Section 37 of fema regarding Rs.64.35 lakhs seized from the residence of the petitioner. Statements made by the petioner on 16th December, 2008 and 22nd December, 2008 under Section 37 offema Date of decision : 04-01-2017 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2281/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 23 | IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. Vs HUBTOWN LTD. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 660 Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN Corporate Guarantee – Defendant alleged that the amount invested by ‘V’ in OPCDs issued by ‘A’ & ‘R’ was to circumvent fema Regulations and thus, the Corporate Guarantee was part of a larger illegal transaction – High Court allowed unconditional leave to defend holding that defendant raised a triable issue – On appeal, held: The suit was filed only on invocation of Corporate Guarantee and it is not the defendant :S case that the said Guarantee was wrongly invoked – Even if a triable issue may be said to arise on the application of fema Regulations, nevertheless, there is a real doubt about Date of decision : 15-11-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10860/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 24 | RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY – [2015] 14 S.C.R. 505 Judge Name: M.Y. EQBAL,C. NAGAPPAN by FM. I . Please supply copy of the note sent to FM 2. The Hon’ble FM made a We do not have this information. I statement that some of the 3. banks fike SBI, ICICI Bank ltd, I I Bank of Baroda, Dena Bank, HSBC Bank etc. were issued letter of displeasure for j I violating fema its Patna I Branch Information sought about “exact nature of i irregularities committed by the I bank under ” fema I An Advisory Letter had been I issued to the bank in December, I 2007 for the bank’s Patna branch having failed to (a) comply with the RBI guiderines on customer I Date of decision : 16-12-2015 | Case Number : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/91/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 25 | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs PANASIA ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. – [2015] 11 S.C.R. 90 Judge Name: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH statutory .prohibition either under fema or RBI Act preventing SEBI from taking action in exercise of its powers under Section 11, 118 and 12A of the SEBI Act, 1992. Therefore it is too late in the day for the H respondents to contend that action can only be taken SEBI ” PANASIAADVISORS LTD. 101 for any violation under the fema and there is no scope A for invoking the provision of SEBI Act, 1992. The said submission therefore is also liable to be rejected. [Para 80, 81, 82] [157-F-H; 158-A-F; 159-D-H; 160-A-G; 161-8] 5.2 Any use, intended or otherwise, of depository B receipts or Date of decision : 06-07-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10560/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 26 | MIS. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD. ETC. & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC. – [2014] 9 S.C.R. 233 Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,V. GOPALA GOWDA , 1973 stood abolished w.e.f. 1.6.2000 i.e. the day fema came into force. Sub Section (3) of Section _49 of fema prohibits the Courts from taking cognizance o of an offence under the repealed Act (FERA) and also prohibits the Adjudication Officer from taking notice of any contravention u/s 51 of provisions of the repealed Act (FERA) as if that Act had not been repealed. Sub Section 5 (b) of Section 49 further provides that any appeal preferred to the Appellate Board under sub F Section (2) of Section 52 of the repealed Act but not disposed of before the commencement of fema shall stand Date of decision : 14-07-2014 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1451/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 27 | BIHAR STATE GOVT. SEC. SCL. TEACHERS ASSN. Vs ASHOK KUMAR SINHA & ORS. – [2014] 7 S.C.R. 371 Judge Name: S.S. NIJJAR,A.K. SIKRI the Resolution 8 ~o.1209 dated 07.07.2006 be r~vived and Notification no.1855 dated 19.11.2007 be annulled. (ii) Consequential Benefits are proposed to be given to the cadre of teachers of Bihar Subordinate Education Service (Teaching Brarich) Male and fema ~e after merger. C 8. Approval of Date of decision : 07-05-2014 | Case Number : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/88/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 28 | TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD. Vs SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT – [2014] 1 S.C.R. 434 Judge Name: S.S. NIJJAR,F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA violation A or contravention of the provisions of FERA or fema at the instance of the purchaser in the instant case, after the money changing transaction as between the appellants and the said concern had come to an end, the appellants cannot in any way be held responsible or proceeded B against Judicature at Bombay in fema Appeal No. 3 of 2008. WITH C.A. NO. 681 of 2014. H.N. Salve, Sanjiv Sen, Abhinav Agrawal, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E.C. Agrawala for the Appelllant. S.K. Bagaria, ASG, P.K. Dey, Anando Mukherjee, Sidhartha Panda, B. Krishna Prasad, for the Respondent Date of decision : 16-01-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/680/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 29 | RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS. – [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1051 Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( fema ) to the extent of Rs.4600 Crores against five more companies C including M/s S-Tel and he is in the process of filing five complaints involving an amount of Rs.1800 Crores under the fema , 1999 and is also in the process of issuing an Date of decision : 09-12-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10660/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 30 | KAMLESH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 263 Judge Name: H.L. GOKHALE,MADAN B. LOKUR transfer- Trial ot petitioners uls. 5~ o~ FERA before Magistrate – FERA replaced by fema – Full C Court of High Court passed resolution transferring the trial under FERA I fema to Special Judge hearing related Fodder scam cases – State Government issued notification empowering said Special Judge to the try the case of petitioners – Transfer of petitioner’s trial to the Special Judge D – Legality of – Held: Though FERA came to be repealed and replaced by fema , in view of s.49(4) of fema , all offences committed under FERA continued to be governed by the provisions of FERA, as if that Date of decision : 26-09-2013 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/6219/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 31 | CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI Vs K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS – [2013] 17 S.C.R. 853 Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,M.Y. EQBAL laws: be it compliance with fema or other Regulations, ORE, being a foreign F investor- an entity of.foreign origin , as per fema , cannot own immovable property in India. Compliance of fema or other applicable regulations cannot be bypassed. By the order’ dated 3.8.2009, Company Law Board modified Date of decision : 09-05-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4540/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 32 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1161 Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,MADAN B. LOKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH 2012 Regulations, Reserve Bank of India in B exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 6 and Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short ” fema “), has made amendments to the 2000 Regulations. 8. There is no challenge to the 2012 Date of decision : 01-05-2013 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/417/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 33 | KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. Vs HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS & IND. LTD. AND ORS. – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 697 Judge Name: A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR Collection and Dissemination of Information on cases of wilful default of Rs.25 lakhs and above was framed by the RBI in the year 1999 when the derivative transactions were not part of the country’s economy. Under the fema Regulations, 2000, only the D banks were authorized to deal with the derivative the transaction is the bank, a scheduled bank, or such other agency falling under the regulatory purview of the RBI under the 1934 Act, fema Act or any other Act or instrument having the force of law, as may be specified F by the RBI from time to time. Derivative transactions In India thus were Date of decision : 11-12-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8916/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 34 | DROPTI DEVI & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2012] 6 S.C.R. 307 Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,H.L. GOKHALE but it is easy to imperil the security of a State by disturbing its economy. The smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators by 0 flouting the regulations and restrictions imposed by fema -by their. misdeeds and misdemeanours-directly affect the national economy and thereby endanger the security reserved the judgment in the matter. On March 18, 2010, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. While dealing with the effect of Foreign Exchange Management Act, E , 1999 (for short, ‘ fema ‘) and the repeal of Foreign Exchange ·’ Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, ‘FERA’) , the Division Bench Date of decision : 02-07-2012 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/65/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 35 | KETAN V. PAREKH Vs SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER. – [2011] 14 S.C.R. 1204 Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA – Condonation of – Imposition of penalty on the appellants for contravening provisions of fema – Appellate tribunal directed appellants to pay 50% of penalty as pre-condition of hearing appeal – Writ petition filed before Delhi High Court, dismissed D as non-maintainable – Appeal filed before Bombay High Court uls.35 of fema against the order of the appellate tribunal after delay of 1056 days – Bombay High court declining condonation of delay in filing appeal – Plea of appellant that Bombay High Court while computing period of E limitation erred in not taking cognizance of s. 14 and in not Date of decision : 29-11-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10301/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 36 | UNION OF INDIA Vs HASSAN ALI KHAN AND ANR. – [2011] 11 S.C.R. 778 Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,S.S. NIJJAR may abscond – Bail granted to Respondent no. 1 cancelled – B Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.4 – fema – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. Bail – Application for cancellation of bail, and appeal against order granting bail – Distinction between. State of U. P. v. Amarmani 30th June, 2003. 5. Further, an investigation was conducted under the D Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, hereafter referred to as ‘ fema ‘. Show-cause notices were issued to the Respondent No.1 for alleged violatio’n of Sections 3A and 4 of fema for dealing in and acquiring and holding Date of decision : 30-09-2011 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1883/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 37 | THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 838 Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN , but C show cause notices and impugned orders issued when fema was in force – Appeal filed uls. 19 of fema – Rejection of, by Appellate Tribunal constituted under fema , applying the first proviso to sub section (2) of s. 52 of FERA instead of following the proviso to sub section (2) to s. 19 of fema – D Held: Limitation for filing appeal has to be considered uls. 19(2) of fema – Provision relating to limitation is procedural – In absence of any provision to contrary, the law in force on date of initiation of appeal irrespective of the date of . . ~crual of the cause of action for Date of decision : 11-04-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3191/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 38 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BINOD KUMAR Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 646 Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA call on assistance of officials from: (a) Customs and Excise Department; B (b) Under the NDPS Act; (c) Income Tax’ (d) Stock Exchange; c (e) RBI; (f) Police; (g) Under fema ; D (h) SEBI; or (i) Any Body Corporate established under an Act or by the Central Government E 16 Date of decision : 29-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2689/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 39 | KANWAR NATWAR SINGH Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR – [2010] 13 S.C.R. 99 Judge Name: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.S. NIJJAR referred to as ‘ fema ‘ or ‘the Act’) in which certain serious allegations have been levelled against the appellants which we are not required to notice in detail. The gravamen of C the complaint is that the appellants along with others, jointly and severally, without general or special permission of fema . It is further alleged that the appellants and others, jointly and severally, without the required permission of the Reserve Bank of India transferred Foreign Exchange of US $ 1,46,247.23 being the commission amount in respect of two oil contracts with SOMO to the account with the Barclays Date of decision : 05-10-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8601/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 40 | UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,A.K. GANGULY jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of fema does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum.” F 26. In Modern Industries v. Steel Authority of India Limited (2010) 5 SCC 44, the Court held that where Date of decision : 26-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5990/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 41 | RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE Vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANOTHER – [2010] 4 S.C.R. 608 Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,A.K. GANGULY Tribunal in a case under fema – Maintainability of – Held: In view of s. 35 which confers appellate jurisdiction on High Court, writ petition is not maintainable – When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition not maintainable ignoring D statutory : ‘Any’ – Meaning of, in the context of s. 35 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. F Pursuant to a notice uls. 3(c) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( fema ), penalty was imposed on the appellant-accused, and the confiscated money was disposed of according to Section 13(2). In Date of decision : 12-04-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3221/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 42 | PAREENA SWARUP Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1217 Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,P. SATHASIVAM REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A Tribunal, istrative Tribunal Act; should be ei- Chairperson under ther deleted or fema etc. The eligibil- the Rules may ity criteria, for appoint- be amended ment as a judge of a to provide that High Court, provided B the Chief Jus- in the Constitution of tice of India exclude for appointment as “those who are member in ATFE under qualified to be fema ; as President of a District District Forum under Judge” and Consumer Protection H onlv servina or Act. 1986 etc. The eli- ‘ .. PAREENA SWARUP v UNION OF INDIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] retired District gibility Date of decision : 30-09-2008 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/634/2007 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 43 | S.K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs MIS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. – [2008] 2 S.C.R. 36 Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,P.P. NAOLEKAR proceedings C for offences committed under FERA – Criminal complaint for violation of provisions of FERA filed on a date within two years of coming into force of fema – Taking of cognizance by Magistrate and issuance of summons to accused on the date of filing of the complaint itself – Writ petition under Article 227 D before High Court by accused seeking quashing of proceedings on the ground that process was issued on a date beyond 2 years of commencement of fema – High Court quashing proceedings as time-barred – HELD: High Court >- erred in equating ‘issuance of process’ with Date of decision : 25-01-2008 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/175/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed |
| 44 | VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING Vs SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. AND ANR. – [2008] 1 S.C.R. 501 Judge Name: TARUN CHATTERJEE,P. SATHASIVAM filing a cross petition. In the ~ said petition, it objected to the enforcement of the Award which ordered transfer of shares which was in violation of Indian Laws F f and Regulations specifically the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short ” fema “) and its notifications. The appellant the rules and regulations thereunder, as well as the Foreign Exchange Management Act, D 1999 ( fema ): ~. i) Obtaining a Share Transfer Form 7-8 and having it … –l endorsed by the prescribed authority under the Companies Act, 1956 in compliance with Section E 108. ii) Execution of Share Date of decision : 10-01-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/309/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed |
| 45 | M/S. DALE AND CARRINGTON INVT. P. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs P.K. PRATHAPAN AND OTHERS – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 334 Judge Name: RUMA PAL,ARUN KUMAR . E FERA stands repealed and the statute brought in force by way of replacement of FERA, i.e. the Foreign Exchange Management Act ( fema ), does not contain any such requirement. [360-A, B, CJ F G H Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts, (1986) 1 SCC 264, relied on. 8. Section ( fema ), does not contain any such requirement. On the question of locus standi the learned counsel for the respondent cited Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. A. Nageshwara Rao and Others, AIR (1956) 213, wherein it was held that the validity of a petition must be judged from the Date of decision : 13-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5915/2002 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 46 | THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANR. Vs MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE AND ANR. – [2004] 1 S.C.R. 399 Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,ARIJIT PASAYAT order. There was clear violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short the ‘FERA’) and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short the ‘ fema ‘). The Enforcement Directorate has clearly indicated in the notice the various infractions which led to such large scale illegal transactions of more than Rupees 270 crores. Respondent No. I (writ petitioner) was clearly guilty of various provisions of FERA and ·G fema . The High Court should have thrown out the writ petition at the threshold. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. I submitted that the Date of decision : 09-01-2004 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/35/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 47 | UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs VENKATESHAN S. AND ANR. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 268 Judge Name: M.B. SHAH,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI the preventive activity had ceased to be criminal activity in view of repeal of FERA, the same being replaced by fema -On appeal-Held, quashing of detention not justified-The view of High Court would result in implied repeal of substantial part of Section 3- F oreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 activity violative of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (FERA) had ceased to be criminal activity on repeal of the Act which was replaced by Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( fema ). The judgment of High Court was passed after 9 months from the date of detention orde.-. In appeal to this Date of decision : 22-04-2002 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/540/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 48 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs MUNEESH SUNEJA – [2001] 1 S.C.R. 683 Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,S.N. VARIAVA atnount recovered either in the shape of Indian currency and foreign currency or the B quantum of gold and the enactments such as the Foreign Exchange Regulation _ .k- Act (FERA) having been repealed, the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act ( fema ) and Gold Control Act not contemplating prosecution Date of decision : 30-01-2001 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/122/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 49 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, MYSORE BANGALORE Vs HAJI ABDUL SATTAR SAIT & ORS. – [1973] 1 S.C.R. 231 Judge Name: S.M. SIKRI,J.M. SHELAT,A.N. RAY,I.D. DUA,HANS RAJ KHANNA as agaLnst the Bombay Halaj. Memons who settled down amidst their co-religionists in Bom bav. Lord Dunedin took the Mombasa case as an illustration fer his dictum that if it was otherwise shown that the Kathiawar Halai Memo11s practised the Hindu law. excludin11: fema ‘·~s from succession, it Date of decision : 19-04-1972 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1354/1968 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 50 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer N. E. HORO Vs JAllAN ARA JAIPAL SINGH – [1972] 3 S.C.R. 361 Judge Name: A.N. GROVER,M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG -Munda fema }~ is approved or sanctioned by the Parha panchayat they be come members of the community. They contention of Mr. Anthony that a person can be l’vlunda by birth alone can be sus tained only if the custom of endogamy is established without any exception. We have already held that the rule Date of decision : 02-02-1972 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/909/1971 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
This post first appeared on Jabalpur Advocate: Best Jabalpur Advocate Top Jabalpur Lawyer High Court DRT, please read the originial post: here
