Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (0.09 seconds)
Documents citing Shanti Prasad Jain vs The Director Of Enforcement on 19 April, 1962

Reserve Bank Of India vs Bank Of Credit And Commerce ... on 27 February, 1992

In Shanti Prasad Jain's case [1963] 33 Comp Cas 231 (SC), the appellant, Shanti Prasad Jain, had made a claim for compensation against certain German firms in respect of machinery supplied by the German firms to the concern of Mr. Jain. As a result of settlement arrived at, certain amounts were deposited by the German firms with the Deutsche Bank in the account of Mr. Jain with the stipulation that the money was to be utilised by Mr. Jain only for the purpose of new machinery which may be purchased from the same firms after obtaining import licences from the Government of India. No. licences were obtained. In respect of the deposit of amount in the account of Mr. Shanti Prasad Jain in Deutsche Bank, Germany, as aforesaid, no permission was obtained from the Reserve Bank of India. The question before the apex court was as the whether the deposit in question evidenced the relationship of a borrower and a lender between the petitioner and the bank or as to whether the bank was merely a custodian or trustee of the said amount like a stakeholder. The question before the court was as to whether section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, was attracted to such a transaction of "specific deposit" as contradistinguished from general deposit.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G. Ramaiah Kandiar vs Additional Director, Enforcement on 11 September, 1987

In the decision in Shanthi Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, , rendered by the Supreme Court, the facts reveal that the appellant therein had certain claims for compensation against certain Germans firms in respect of machinaries supplied by them to the appellants's concerns. The appellant went to Germany and arrived at a settlement with the firms under which firms deposited certain sums of money with the Deustche Bank in the account of the appellant with the stipulation that the money was only to be used by the appellant for the purpose of new machineries from the same firms after obtaining import licensed from the Government of India. The appellant had not obtained such permission, general or special, of the Reserve Bank for opening the account and therefore proceedings were initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement for adjudication Regulation Act, 19947. The Director imposed a penalty of Rs. 55 lakhs and on appeal, the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board held that the deposits amounted to loans by the appellant to the Bank and consequently section 4(1) was contravened, but it reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the appellant cannot be said to have lent money to the bank and had not contravened the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act and allowed the appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B S R And Associates Llp And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

Whether the 1996 judgment in Director of Enforcement vs. M.C.T.M. Corp. (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to consider constitutional Bench judgment in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Director of Enforcement, FERA-- AIR 62 SC 1754 where in para 35, Hon. Constitution Bench observes that the proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character & it is the duty of the respondents to prove violation of law beyond reasonable doubt, has no bearing in this case. Similarly,questions like Whether S. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:43 ::: HVN 163 140(5) is Unconstitutional? Does it violate Art. 14 by signaling out the CAs for a harsher treatment & leaving out the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it bad since it allows pick & choose between the CAs and the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it arbitrary as it does not contain procedural safeguards?, are also answered supra by us. It is seen that debarment under S. 140(5)-2 nd proviso can not be seen as quasi-criminal.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

Whether the 1996 judgment in Director of Enforcement vs. M.C.T.M. Corp. (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to consider constitutional Bench judgment in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Director of Enforcement, FERA-- AIR 62 SC 1754 where in para 35, Hon. Constitution Bench observes that the proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character & it is the duty of the respondents to prove violation of law beyond reasonable doubt, has no bearing in this case. Similarly,questions like Whether S. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:11 ::: HVN 163 140(5) is Unconstitutional? Does it violate Art. 14 by signaling out the CAs for a harsher treatment & leaving out the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it bad since it allows pick & choose between the CAs and the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it arbitrary as it does not contain procedural safeguards?, are also answered supra by us. It is seen that debarment under S. 140(5)-2 nd proviso can not be seen as quasi-criminal.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

Whether the 1996 judgment in Director of Enforcement vs. M.C.T.M. Corp. (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to consider constitutional Bench judgment in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Director of Enforcement, FERA-- AIR 62 SC 1754 where in para 35, Hon. Constitution Bench observes that the proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character & it is the duty of the respondents to prove violation of law beyond reasonable doubt, has no bearing in this case. Similarly,questions like Whether S. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:52 ::: HVN 163 140(5) is Unconstitutional? Does it violate Art. 14 by signaling out the CAs for a harsher treatment & leaving out the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it bad since it allows pick & choose between the CAs and the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it arbitrary as it does not contain procedural safeguards?, are also answered supra by us. It is seen that debarment under S. 140(5)-2 nd proviso can not be seen as quasi-criminal.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

R. Venkata Subbu And Ors. vs The Director Of Enforcement And Anr. on 2 February, 1967

Laws imposing penalties cannot be extended by construction to anything beyond the letter of the law even though within their spirit. It must be noted that in this case Section 23 provides also for criminal prosecution where heavy punishment is necessary. The language of the statute cannot be construed as having one meaning if criminal proceedings are brought and a different meaning when penalties are imposed. As pointed out in Shanti Prasad v. Director of Enforcement , 1775, proceedings under the Act are quasi criminal in character and it is the duty of the department as prosecutor to make out beyond all reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of the law. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the decision in H. P. C. Productions Ltd., In re (1962) 2 W.L.R. 51. No doubt a statute should not be so construed so as to narrow the words, of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words in their ordinary acceptation would comprehend.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kalpesh Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

Whether the 1996 judgment in Director of Enforcement vs. M.C.T.M. Corp. (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to consider constitutional Bench judgment in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Director of Enforcement, FERA-- AIR 62 SC 1754 where in para 35, Hon. Constitution Bench observes that the proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character & it is the duty of the respondents to prove violation of law beyond reasonable doubt, has no bearing in this case. Similarly,questions like Whether S. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:02 ::: HVN 163 140(5) is Unconstitutional? Does it violate Art. 14 by signaling out the CAs for a harsher treatment & leaving out the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it bad since it allows pick & choose between the CAs and the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it arbitrary as it does not contain procedural safeguards?, are also answered supra by us. It is seen that debarment under S. 140(5)-2 nd proviso can not be seen as quasi-criminal.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

N Sampath Ganesh vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

Whether the 1996 judgment in Director of Enforcement vs. M.C.T.M. Corp. (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to consider constitutional Bench judgment in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Director of Enforcement, FERA-- AIR 62 SC 1754 where in para 35, Hon. Constitution Bench observes that the proceedings under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character & it is the duty of the respondents to prove violation of law beyond reasonable doubt, has no bearing in this case. Similarly,questions like Whether S. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:32 ::: HVN 163 140(5) is Unconstitutional? Does it violate Art. 14 by signaling out the CAs for a harsher treatment & leaving out the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it bad since it allows pick & choose between the CAs and the Directors of the Company or its office bearers? Is it arbitrary as it does not contain procedural safeguards?, are also answered supra by us. It is seen that debarment under S. 140(5)-2 nd proviso can not be seen as quasi-criminal.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 4 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next