Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973

88 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STATE CBIversusSASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANR.

2006 INSC 77131 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the grant of an advance licence for import of cotton fabrics, leading to a criminal complaint against a company, its directors and four public servants under the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Customs Act. The company and its directors filed a declaration unde

M. AHAMEDKUTTYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

1990 INSC 2431 January 1990Appeal(s) allowed

M. Ahamedkuti was intercepted for smuggling gold and was granted bail on 12‑Feb‑1988. The Kerala Home Secretary later issued a detention order under COFEPOSA on 25‑Jun‑1988, which was executed on 2‑Aug‑1988. The appellant challenged the order on grounds of unexplained delays in passing and executing the order and, cruc

M/S J.B. BODA AND CO. PVT. LTD.versusCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI

1996 INSC 125430 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Mis J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., a reinsurance broker, received a commission in US dollars after deducting its fee from the gross reinsurance premium it remitted to foreign reinsurers with RBI approval. The company claimed that the retained commission constituted "income received in convertible foreign exchange" under Se

THE COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATIONversusINCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR.

1998 INSC 16230 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Coca‑Cola Export Corp., a wholly‑owned non‑resident subsidiary of the Coca‑Cola Company, claimed deductions for pro‑rated home‑office expenses and service charges paid in US dollars. The Income‑Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed portions of these deductions and later issued notices under Section 148 of the Income‑Tax Act to

PUSHPADEVI M. JATIAversusM.L. WADHAVAN, ADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 14129 April 1987Dismissed

Mohanlal Jatia was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on the basis of documents seized from his brother‑in‑law and statements recorded by R.C. Singh of the Enforcement Directorate. His wife, Pushpadevi Jatia, challenged the detention before th

FERAversusM/S. PREMIER LIMITED (FORMERLY PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.) & ORS.

2019 INSC 10229 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a High Court order that had upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Director (Appeals) under FEMA to hear appeals against an adjudication order passed under Section 51 of the repealed FERA. The adjudication order, dated 5 December 2003, imposed a penalty on Godrej Industries Ltd. and

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) BOMBAYversusBABU MIYA SHEIKH IMAM AND ORS. ETC.

1983 INSC 8428 July 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Assistant Collector of Customs intercepted a fishing vessel carrying 194 ingots of silver, suspecting smuggling. The accused were convicted under several statutes, including section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction under the Customs Act, holding that the phrase

K.T.M.S. MOHD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA

1992 INSC 13428 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate seized Rs.4,28,713 in 1966 and recorded statements from appellants K.T.S. Mohammed and M. Jamal Mohammed under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Both appellants later retracted those statements, claiming they were obtained under duress, and the Income‑Tax Officer reco

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND 0THERSversusADITYA V. BIRLA

1987 INSC 35127 November 1987Dismissed

Aditya V. Birla, a technician, entered into a three‑year agreement with Thai Rayon Company to provide services in Bangkok and sought approval from the Indian Government to claim a deduction under Section 80RRA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Government refused, contending that the provision applied only to "employees"

SHAILENDRA SWARUPversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

2020 INSC 46527 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Modi Xerox Ltd. made foreign exchange remittances in 1985 and was served a show‑cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) against the company and its directors. One of the directors, Shailendra Swarup, contended that he was a part‑time, non‑executive director and had no responsibility for the

ASHOK KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 2427 January 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Kumar was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on allegations of illegal foreign‑currency and gold transactions. The grounds of detention were served on 21 March 1987, but the material documents on which the Detaining Authority relied

KAMLESH KUMAR AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2013 INSC 65426 September 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, children of a former Director of Animal Husbandry, were charged under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) for receiving foreign exchange. While the cases were pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State Government, with the High Court's resolution, transferred them to a

ASHA JOHN DIVIANATHANversusVIKRAM MALHOTRA & ORS.

2021 INSC 12126 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. F.L. Raitt, a foreign national, sold a portion of her Indian immovable property to the predecessor of the appellant after obtaining prior RBI permission, but gifted another portion to respondent No.1 without such permission. The appellant and respondent No.4 sued to declare the gift deeds void; the trial court dis

FORASOLversusOIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (AND VICE VERSA)

1983 INSC 16225 October 1983Disposed off

Forasol, a French company, entered into a drilling contract with ONGC that required most payments in French Francs and 20% in Indian rupees at a fixed rate. After the rupee was devalued, Forasol claimed a higher conversion rate, which the arbitrator awarded without specifying a rate for the Franc portion. The Delhi Hig

PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 86225 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether it could compel Parliament to enact a law disqualifying candidates against whom serious criminal charges have been framed and whether it could direct the Election Commission to deny such candidates the use of a party's reserved symbol. The Court held that disqualification is a matter

S.K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERversusMIS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 10525 January 2008Case Allowed

The Chief Enforcement Officer filed a criminal complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) against Videocon International Ltd. on May 24, 2002. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the same day and later issued summons on February 3, 2003. The accused sought quashing of the

M/S ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2001 INSC 4725 January 2001Disposed off

The appellants, Indian public corporations engaged in manufacturing, imported technical drawings, designs and manuals from foreign collaborators on media such as paper and diskettes under technical collaboration agreements. The Customs Commissioner issued show‑cause notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act allegi

HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES' UNIONversusHINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED AND ORS

1994 INSC 48324 October 1994Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (TOMCO) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL), a subsidiary of the foreign multinational Unilever. The petitioners – nominal TOMCO shareholders, employee unions and consumer groups – challenged the scheme on six grounds,

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusCITI BANK, N. A.

2022 INSC 131824 August 2022Dismissed

Citi Bank, an authorized dealer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), accepted cash in foreign currency into the NRE account of a non‑resident Indian during October 1992‑January 1993. In 2002 the Enforcement Directorate issued a show‑cause notice alleging violations of several FERA provisions, relying

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, NEW DELHIversusM/S BROOKS INTERNA TI ON AL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 66524 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned appeals by the Commissioner of Customs against the confiscation of a consignment of readymade garments exported by Mis Brooks International for duty drawback. The revenue authorities seized the goods, invoking Sections 113(c) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the market value of the goo

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusEXCHANGE CENTRE

2020 INSC 35424 April 2020Dismissed

The UAE Exchange Centre, a UAE company, obtained RBI permission under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to operate liaison offices in India for limited functions such as receiving remittance data, printing cheques/drafts and couriering them to beneficiaries. The Authority for Advance Rulings held that income from the

D.ANURADHAversusJOINT SECRETARY AND ANR.

2006 INSC 23924 April 2006Dismissed

The appellant, D. Anuradha, challenged the preventive detention of her husband under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, alleging procedural violations. She contended that the reference to the COFEPOSA Advisory Board was made after the statutory five‑we

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS.

2006 INSC 10324 February 2006Dismissed

Standard Chartered Bank and its officers challenged show‑cause notices issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) alleging that Sections 50, 51, 56 and 68 were unconstitutional as they violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bank argued that FERA, being in the Ninth Schedule, should not

UNION BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. SEPPO RALLY OY AND ORS.

1999 INSC 44123 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Union Bank of India issued a bank guarantee for Dany Dairy & Food Engineers Ltd., which was later invoked by Seppo Rally OY, a Finnish company. Payment under the guarantee was delayed because the bank had to obtain permission from the Reserve Bank of India to remit the amount in foreign exchange and because of a la

ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWALversusNEERAJ KUMAR & ANR.

2013 INSC 77122 November 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a former Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate, alleged that respondents deliberately suppressed material facts about a mistaken Interpol notice, causing him to remain in judicial custody for 36 days. He filed a criminal contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution, claiming the respo

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusINDIAN BANK AND ANR.

2003 INSC 24922 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) sued Indian Bank and Indo‑Europe Foods Ltd for recovery of a US‑dollar bank guarantee amounting to USD 5,237,284.54. The plaint sought a decree in US dollars with rupee equivalents for court‑fee and jurisdiction purposes. PNB later applied to amend the pleading to delete the rupee equivalents

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusVENKATESHAN S. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 21622 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India detained B. Sankar under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) for alleged hawala transactions involving Rs. 42.9 lakh. The Karnataka High Court set aside the detention, holding that the underlying offence under the repealed Fore

FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusANIL RISHIRAJ & ANR.

2023 INSC 84521 September 2023Dismissed

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) repealed the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) but saved prosecutions for offences under sections 56 and 57 of FERA if cognizance was taken within two years of FEMA's commencement. An Enforcement Officer appointed under FERA filed a complaint on 11 February 20

MONOTOSH SAHAversusSPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.

2008 INSC 95921 August 2008Disposed off

Monotosh Saha was penalised Rs 25 lakhs for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Special Director ordered the penalty and the Appellate Tribunal required a 60% pre‑deposit to entertain the appeal. Saha contended that the pre‑deposit caused undue hardship and sought dis

P.V. MOHAMMAD BARMAY SONSversusDIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

1992 INSC 21520 August 1992Dismissed

The firm P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons owned three vessels and, without Reserve Bank of India permission, purchased and fitted foreign engines, contravening Sections 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. A raid in 1974 led to a notice, show‑cause proceedings and a penalty of Rs 50,000 imposed under

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusESCORTS LTD, & ORS.

1985 INSC 25119 December 1985Disposed off

The case concerned the purchase of shares in Escorts Ltd by thirteen overseas companies, predominantly owned by non‑resident Indians, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) portfolio investment scheme. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) later granted permission for the purchases, which the company had init

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, A.P.versusSURESH JHUNJHUNWALA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 72719 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, exporters of garments under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme, filed shipping bills claiming export benefits, but the goods were intercepted and found to be cheap garments grossly mis‑declared and heavily over‑invoiced. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods under Secti

M/S. GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAUHATI

2005 INSC 43019 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. acquired the Indian undertakings of twelve UK‑registered tea companies under a scheme of arrangement approved by the High Courts and the RBI, which required that the net assets of the acquired business not be depleted. The consideration paid (Rs 490 lakhs) was lower than the net asse

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2016 INSC 117719 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Videocon Industries Ltd. and its directors were penalised by the adjudicating authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) for alleged violations of sections 18(2) and 18(3). They appealed before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, which held that the transactions (purchase of goods from Korea an

VINOD SOLANKIversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2008 INSC 147318 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Vinod Solanki's office was searched and cash seized; he subsequently made statements to Enforcement officials under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) admitting to foreign exchange remittances, but later retracted those statements alleging coercion. The authorities imposed a Rs 10 lakh penalty based largely on

RADHEYSHYAM KEJRIWALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2011 INSC 13318 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Radheshyam Kejriwal, was investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of Sections 8(2) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). An adjudication proceeding under Section 51 concluded that the charges were not sustainable and the ED dropped the penalty

C. SAMPATH KUMARversusTHE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MADRAS

1997 INSC 65916 September 1997Dismissed

The appellant was served a summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, requiring him to appear before the Enforcement Officer and give a written, signed statement. He challenged the summons, contending that he could not be compelled to provide a written statement, alleging that the process am

VIJAY PRAKASH D. MEHTA & ANR.versusCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), BOMBAY

1988 INSC 22316 August 1988Dismissed

The appellants, Indian citizens residing abroad, were caught with large amounts of foreign exchange and were penalised Rs 3 lakhs each under the Customs Act. They appealed the penalty under s.129A, and the Customs Appellate Tribunal, invoking s.129E, reduced the security deposit to Rs 1 lakh each. Claiming inability to

K. KRISHNA M.A. RALHANYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 61116 May 2007Disposed off

The appellant, K. Krishna M.A. RAIHANY, applied for Indian citizenship by naturalization under Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. He alleged that no order had been passed on his application, while the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra contended that a communication dated 29 August 2006 from the Under

TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD.versusSPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

2014 INSC 2916 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. and its Executive Director were alleged to have sold US$147,000 and £1,000 to Hotel Zam Zam in 1997 through persons not authorized under the RBI's Foreign Exchange Management (FLM) memorandum, violating sections 6(4), 6(5), 7 and 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and paragraph

MIS. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD. ETC. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

2014 INSC 98214 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

MIS Opera House Exports Ltd. and others were adjudicated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for alleged violations relating to export bill realizations. The adjudicating authority issued an order on 11 October 2007, which was served on the company on 25 October 2007. The company filed an appeal befo

POOLPANDI ETC. ETC.versusSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 15914 May 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a person questioned under the Customs Act, 1962 or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer. The petitioners argued that denial of counsel violated Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution, while the Department contended that such per

MJ. EXPORTS LTD. AND ANR.versusCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE

1992 INSC 16214 May 1992Dismissed

MJ Exports Ltd., a recognised trading house, imported haemodialysers from West Germany under an Open General Licence (OGL) for "stock and sale" and cleared them for "home consumption" free of duty. The goods were repacked in India and exported to the USSR. Customs detained the goods, deeming the re‑export impermissible

M/S. DALE AND CARRINGTON INVT. P. LTD. AND ANOTHERversusP.K. PRATHAPAN AND OTHERS

2004 INSC 51513 September 2004Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of M/s. Dale & Carrington Investments Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director P.K. Ramanujam, upholding the Kerala High Court’s order that the allotment of 6,865 equity shares to Ramanujam was invalid. The Court held that no valid Board meeting had taken place, the company did not ne

SINGER INDIA LTD.versusCHANDER MOHAN CHADHA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44713 August 2004Dismissed

The landlord sued Singer India Ltd for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the American tenant had transferred possession to the Indian company without the landlord's written consent. The transfer resulted from a court‑sanctioned amalgamation compelled by a Reserve Bank of India

UNION OF INDIAversusR. PADMANABHAN

2003 INSC 38713 August 2003Case Partly allowed

The Union of India issued a 1985 Reward Scheme for informers and government servants involved in seizures under the Customs, Central Excise & Salt, Gold Control and Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts, later amended in 1989 to cap rewards at Rs 1 lakh per seizure and Rs 10 lakh in a career. IPS officer R. Padmanabhan, who

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) & ORS.versusLALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

2022 INSC 71913 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), sought to validate a search and seizure warrant issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia, who had transferred Rs 10 crore as a loan to a newly formed company and later repaid it with interest. The High

VIJAY MALLYAversusENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE

2015 INSC 49313 July 2015Dismissed

Vijay Mallya, Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to appear before the Enforcement Directorate regarding alleged violations of foreign exchange rules in a Benetton advertising agreement. He failed to appear on several summons, leading to a

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusA.K. BALALJI AND ORS.

2018 INSC 23513 March 2018Disposed off

The Bar Council of India appealed against orders allowing foreign law firms and lawyers to operate in India, arguing that the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts the practice of law to advocates enrolled with the Bar Council, covering both litigation and non‑litigation work. The Supreme Court examined whether foreign entitie

M/S TELESTAR TRAVELS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusSPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

2013 INSC 9813 February 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. and its directors challenging the adjudication order under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) that found them guilty of dealing in foreign exchange without RBI permission and of using a paper company, Bountiful Ltd., to route funds. The Court held

M/S COX AND KINGS LTD. AND ANR.versusSMT. CHANDER MALHOTRA

1996 INSC 147512 December 1996Dismissed

The premises were originally leased to Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd., a foreign company incorporated in the United Kingdom. After the Reserve Bank of India denied permission for the foreign company to continue its business under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the leasehold interest was assigned to an Indian com

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusADANI EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.

2007 INSC 114212 November 2007Disposed off

The Union of India issued show‑cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962 alleging mis‑declaration, over‑invoicing and misuse of foreign exchange by Adani Exports Ltd. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Sections 49(3) and 49(4) of the Fore

HARDIE TRADING LTD. AND ANR.versusADDISONS PAINT AND CHEMICALS LTD.

2003 INSC 47612 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Hardie Trading Ltd. (Hardie) owned the trademarks "Spartan" and "Spartan Velox" and a warrior device, which it used in India under a 1946 collaboration agreement with Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. (Addisons). After the agreement lapsed, Addisons applied to delete Hardie's marks under s.46 of the Trade and Merchandi

UNION OF INDIAversusABN AMRO BANK AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 46212 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India prosecuted M/s Maple Leaf Trading International Pvt. Ltd. and its foreign shareholders for trading imported gold coins without RBI permission, alleging violations of Sections 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), 29(1)(b), 47(1), 49(1)(a) and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Adjudicating Authority

M/S. SEEMA SILK & SAREES & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.

2008 INSC 63212 May 2008Dismissed

M/s. Seema Silk & Sarees, a partnership firm, and its partner were penalised under Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for failing to repatriate export proceeds within the prescribed period. They challenged the constitutional validity of these provisions, arguing that the reverse burde

MUKESH TIKAJI BORAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 40811 April 2007Dismissed

The appellant challenged the preventive detention of his brother Bherchand Tikaji Bora under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, arguing that the detenu had been fully exonerated in adjudication proceedings under FERA and that this should nullify the detention order. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that exoneration do

A. TAJUDEENversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 70210 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant A. Tajudeen was prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for allegedly receiving foreign exchange without an authorized dealer. The Enforcement Directorate relied on a purported statement made on 20‑April‑1989, statements recorded during a raid on 25‑Oct‑1989 and while in custody on 26‑O

HARIDAS AMARCHAND SHAH OF BOMBAYversusK.L. VERMA & ORS.

1988 INSC 3639 December 1988Dismissed

The Enforcement Directorate searched the appellant's house and seized currency, bank drafts, bank pass books and loose sheets. The appellant was arrested, gave a statement, later retracted it, and was released on bail with a condition to attend the Enforcement Department daily, which was subsequently varied. A detentio

MOHTESHAM MOHD. ISMAILversusSPL. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.

2007 INSC 10199 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail, was served with a show‑cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for allegedly remitting funds from the UAE through unauthorized persons and was penalised by the Special Director of Enforcement under section 9(3). He appealed to the Foreign Exchange Regul

K. RAMULLANversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

2000 INSC 3849 August 2000Appeal(s) allowed

K. Ramullan, an Indian-origin Malaysian citizen, owned a Non‑Resident (External) Account in an Indian bank and stayed in India with his wife for medical treatment from June 1982 to April 1985. He claimed exemption from tax on the interest earned under Section 10(4A) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that he was a "person

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.versusM. SAMBA SIVA RAO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3059 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate issued summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to M. Samba Siva Rao and others, who refused to comply with the directions. The Delhi High Court held that such refusal did not attract Section 56 of the Act and dismissed the complaints. On appeal, the Supreme Cour

MOTI LALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2002 INSC 1889 April 2002Dismissed

Motilal was arrested for possessing skins of protected wildlife under several provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Central Government, invoking the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, issued a notification and, with the consent of the Uttar Pradesh Government, transferred the investigation to the

THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANR.versusMOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE AND ANR.

2004 INSC 289 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No. I filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging a show‑cause notice issued by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and sought an interim injunction restraining further investigation.

SEA PEARL INDUSTRIES AND ORS., ETCversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

2001 INSC 109 January 2001Dismissed

Sea Pearl Industries, a processor of seafood, entered into an agreement with an eligible export house to export its processed products. The export house opened a Letter of Credit in its own name, which was later endorsed to Sea Pearl and the foreign exchange credited to its account. Sea Pearl claimed a deduction under

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6988 July 1996Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC to investigate alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, who was accused of purchasing property and incurring expenses abroad without RBI approval. The Chief Judicial Magistrat

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND VICE VERSA

1998 INSC 98 January 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) seized documents from Ashok Kumar Jain’s residence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and issued repeated summons for his interrogation. Jain, citing deteriorating health, applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The Delhi High Court

M/S. BHARAT CARPETSversusDIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

2008 INSC 7677 July 2008Dismissed

M/s Bharat Carpets, a partnership firm, and its two partners were penalised for failing to repatriate export proceeds amounting to Rs.5,12,171 within the six‑month period prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The firm contended that it had taken steps for repatriation, citing bank

M/S. OM PRAKASH BHATIAversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI

2003 INSC 3067 July 2003Dismissed

The appellant, O.P. Bhatia, exported ladies' skirts and declared a value far above the domestic market price, subsequently claiming a large drawback. The Customs Commissioner found that the export value was deliberately over‑invoiced, treated the goods as prohibited, confiscated them and imposed a fine and penalty. The

SOLIDAIRE INDIA LTD.versusFAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 767 February 2001Dismissed

Solidaire India Ltd. had taken three loans from Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and claimed that the agreed interest rate was 18% per annum. The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions and Securities) Act, 1992, awarded interest at 21.5% and 23% respectively, which the appellant contested. The appe

S.K. KAMDAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1995 INSC 5406 September 1995Dismissed

The appellants were charged with violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Indian Penal Code section 120‑B. A complaint was filed under the corresponding provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the 1947 and 1973 Acts were incon

STRIDEWELL LEATHERS (P) LTD. AND ORS.versusBHANKERPUR SIMBHAOLI BEVERAGES (P) LTD. AND ORS.

1993 INSC 3175 October 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Stridewell Leathers Ltd., filed a petition under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board concerning Shoe Specialities Pvt. Ltd., whose registered office was in Madras. The Board, sitting in Delhi, passed an order which a shareholder appealed to the Delhi High Court under

DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR.versusP.V. PRABHAKAR RAO

1997 INSC 5945 August 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, P.V. Prabhakar Rao, feared arrest in connection with a massive urea‑related foreign exchange fraud and sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted an interim order, later making it absolute, relying on the responde

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS. ETC.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS. ETC.

2005 INSC 2595 May 2005

The Supreme Court examined whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when the statute mandates both imprisonment and fine. The appellants argued that because a company cannot be imprisoned, the provision could not apply to them. The Court

ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIKversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1989 INSC 1224 April 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for allegedly facilitating unauthorized foreign exchange transactions. He filed a representation against his detention, which he handed to the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Bomb

SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TR.LRS. & ORS.

2012 INSC 5553 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit for specific performance of a 1970 agreement to sell a Delhi bungalow. The plaintiffs argued they were ready to fulfil their obligations, while the defendant claimed the suit was time‑barred and that the plaintiffs breached clause 7 by not paying an additional Rs 1 lakh. The Court held

NARENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1989 INSC 1783 May 1989Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Controller of Capital Issues' (CCI) consent to Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd.'s (RPL) issue of fully convertible debentures, which petitioners alleged was granted with undue haste, without proper application of mind, and in violation of non‑statutory guidelines, security req

BURN STANDARD COMPANY LIMITEDversusMCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. AND ANOTHER

1991 INSC 873 April 1991Dismissed

Burn Standard Company Ltd., a Government undertaking, entered into a technical collaboration agreement with McDermott International Inc. to obtain foreign technical know‑how, requiring RBI permission under Section 28(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The agreement received approval from the Sec

JIJU KURUVILA & ORS.versusKUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & ORS

2013 INSC 4092 July 2013Disposed off

The claimants, the wife, children and mother of Joy Kuruvila, who died in a road accident while employed in the US, filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a sum in Indian rupees. The key issues were the appropriate date for fixing the foreign exchange rate to convert the deceased's U

HIRA LAL HARI LAL BHAGWATI.versusC.B.I., NEW DELHI

2003 INSC 2752 May 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat Cancer Society imported MRI and lithotripsy machines under a customs duty exemption certificate that required the equipment to be used by the "actual user". The Customs Collector later held the society liable for duty but, considering its charitable purpose, imposed only a token fine and did not prosecute.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusV.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1192 March 1998Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) relied on two spiral notebooks and related documents recovered from J.K. Jain's premises to charge politicians V.C. Shukla and L.K. Advani, alleging they received bribes through a hawala scheme. The Supreme Court examined whether the notebooks qualified as "books of account" un

GURCHARAN SINGHversusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

2008 INSC 4341 April 2008Dismissed

Gurcharan Singh, a customs officer, along with others, created fictitious firms to claim a duty drawback of Rs 1.04 crore for allegedly exported readymade garments that were over‑invoiced and of inferior quality. A complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act led to cognizance by a magistrate; the appellant’

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search