Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing K.N. Mehta vs Director Of Enforcement And Others on 20 May, 1982

Ranjan K. Shroff vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Sujay Trading Corporation Ltd vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Kanan Shroff vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Neha Shroff vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Kiran Shroff vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Ranjan K. Shroff vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025

31. Ordinarily, one of the crucial tests for determining the question of residence is whether the Appellants had an animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If the person had such an intention, he could be said to reside there. ( K. N. Mehta V. The Director of Enforcement2). This position is reflected in Section 2 (p) of FERA, which defines "person resident in India" to mean a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25 th day of March 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of, or stays outside, India, in either case for or on taking up of employment outside, or India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Auto Pin India (Regd.) And Anr. vs Director Of Enforcement Of Foreign ... on 1 February, 2001

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeals No. 120, 121/75 K.N. Mehta, Mrs. Sarswati v. Director, 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 644 wherein this court has held that the definition of "a person resident in India" given in the 1973 Act would extend to the 1947 Act as well. The matter, therefore, stands concluded by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 120, 121/75. I find, therefore, that the Appellate Board has erred in so far as it has held that the Notices II to IV are not covered by (he definition given in the 1973 Act. In this view of the matter. I set aside the finding of the Appellate Board pertaining to Show Cause Notices II to IV and hold that the definition as defined in the 1973 Act would be applicable to the 1947 Act and benefits thereof must go to the appellant. The fine deposited will be refunded to the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R S Sodhi - Full Document
1