Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (3.04 seconds)
Documents citing Director Of Enforcement vs M.C.T.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 19 January, 1996

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

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

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

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

Hari Sankaran 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 04:05:21 ::: 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

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

Comex And Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 5 February, 1997

16. On a careful reading of the provisions contained in Section 11l or 112 (a), we are unable to come to the conclusion that there was any scope or need to import into adjudicator/proceedings for breach of civil obligations, the principle of mens rea in the conventional sense of common law usage, as having been inbuilt as an ingredient to be established as a condition precedent before indicating any violator under any of those provisions with personal penalty. The establishment of blameworthy conduct, which stands proved from the very proof of contravention of the civil obligation, would in our view, suffice to justify the imposition of personal penalty in adjudicatory proceedings before the statutory departmental authorities. The need for insisting upon further proof of the mental attitude of the violator concerned, may assume some significance in any prosecution initiated before the criminal court for the very contravention or violation concerned. But, in our view, as held by the Apex Court in M. CT.M. Corporation Private Ltd. A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1100, Gujarat Travancore Agency's case A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1671 and the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Vijaya Elecrticals case, 82 S.T.C. 268, and Lakshmi & Co. 's case, 87 S.T.C. 345 the penalty contemplated under Section 112(a) of the Act for the violation in question is of a civil obligation, remedial and corrective in its nature and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the criminal or penal laws. The regulation which is sought to be provided for, and the violation of which is to be dealt with under Sections lll and 112 of the Act, are in respect of the laws of great and serious importance in conserving the economy of the Nation and have to be, therefore, viewed in their proper perspective so as not to result in abnegation or abrogation of the avowed object and purpose of the Legislation, which is not only regulatory, but prohibitory in nature, the mandate contained therein being in the larger interests and general welfare of the nation.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kosha Investments Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 8 August, 2005

ii) Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. where it says "7. "Mens rea" is a state of mind. Under the criminal law, mens rea is considered as the "guilty intention" and unless it is found that the 'accused' had the guilty intention to commit the 'crime' he cannot be held 'guilty' of committing the crime. An 'offence' under Criminal Procedure Code and the General Clauses Act, 1897 is defined as any act or omission "made punishable by any law of the time being in force". The proceedings under Section 23(1)(a) of FERA, 1947 are 'adjudicatory' in nature and character and are not "criminal proceedings". The officers of the Enforcement Directorate and other administrative authorities are expressly empowered by the Act to 'adjudicate' only. Indeed they have to act 'judicially' and follow the rules of natural justice to the extent applicable but, they are not 'Judges' of the "Criminal Courts" trying an 'accused' for commission of an offence, as understood in the general context. They perform quasi-judicial functions and do not act as 'courts' but only as 'administrators' and 'adjudicators'. In the proceedings before them, they do not try 'an accused' for commission of "any crime" (not merely an offence) but determine the liability of the contravenor for the breach of his 'obligations' imposed under the Act. They impose 'penalty' for the breach of the "civil obligations" laid down under the Act and not impose any 'sentence' for the commission of an offence. The expression 'penalty' is a word of wide significance. Sometimes, it means recovery of an amount as a penal measure even in civil proceedings. An exaction which is not compensatory in character is also termed as a 'penalty. When penalty is imposed by an adjudicating officer, it is done so in "adjudicatory proceedings" and not by way of fine as a result of 'prosecution' of an 'accused' for commission of an 'offence' in a criminal court. Therefore, merely because 'penalty' clause exists in Section 23(1)(a), the nature of the proceedings under that section is not changed from 'adjudicatory' to 'criminal' prosecution. An order made by an adjudicating authority under the Act is not that of conviction but of determination of the breach of the civil obligation by the offender."
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Action Committee For Resolving Gujarat ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 January, 2005

41. Learned counsel for he consignees, Shri Pankaj Kalra invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corporation (P) Ltd. to contend that the "delinquent" is the consignor and hence the consignee cannot be made to pay the penal charges. That case was concerned with the question whether for purposes of proceedings under Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 the Department had to prove mens rea in cases involving breach of Section 10 of the said Act. It was held that the "delinquency" of the defaulter by reason of wilful contravention of Section 10 had itself established his "blameworthy" conduct and it was not necessary to prove any guilty intention. It was held that officers of the Enforcement Directorate were acting as adjudicators and not as judges of criminal courts and they determine the liability of the contravener for breach of his "civil obligations" laid down under the Act and impose a "penalty" for the breach of the said obligations as laid down under the Act. In that context it was observed that the word "penalty" is a word of wide significance, sometimes it means recovery of an amount as a penal measure in civil proceedings, or an exaction which is not compensatory in character. Reference was made in that case to Corpus juris Secundum, (Vol. 85, p.580, para 1023), to the effect that a "penalty" can be imposed for a tax delinquency which is a civil obligation, entailing remedial and coercive processes, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for violation of criminal or penal laws.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - J Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next