Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 35 in The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Securities & Exchange Board Of India vs Mega Corp.Ltd. on 25 March, 2022
(1) Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Enforcement Directorate,3
(2) Union of India v. Amarjeet Singh,4
(3) SEBI v. Mega Corp. Ltd.,5
(4) Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and Geeneral Mills Ltd. v. CIT ,6
Doctrine of proportionality - Interference of Court when justified.
Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General Mills ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 30 March, 1966
In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills (supra) , while dealing
with the issue as to whether there was justification for an
interference by the High Court in a finding of fact by transforming
the same into the question of law, the Apex Court has held as follows:
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
In Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has held as
follows:
Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. on 24 September, 1991
8. The Appeals were then heard by the Tribunal and the
impugned order dated 11th July 2019 came to be passed. In its
finding, the Tribunal has recorded that the various propositions of
law raised by the parties are well settled by the Foreign Exchange
Gaikwad RD
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2023 09:28:47 :::
16/28 901-911-FEMA-1-2020+-J.doc
Tribunal and various High Courts and the Supreme Court and the
adjudicating officer is bound to follow the said decisions. The
Tribunal has found the order of the Special Director to be perverse
inasmuch as it failed to deal with many of the precedents of the High
Courts and the Supreme Court which are binding on the Adjudicating
officers. The Tribunal relied on many decisions especially the
decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (a) Wimco Ltd. Vs
Director of Enforcement,1 and (b) Union of India vs Kamalakshi
Finance Corporation Ltd.2 The Tribunal has re-appreciated the
evidence minutely and concluded absence of any intention or mens
rea on the part of Respondents in contravening the provisions of
FEMA. Many Respondents, who are individuals were not in charge of
the day-to-day management of the entities and were not even aware
of the remittances in the manner alleged as illegal. The Tribunal has
thus held that the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court and
the High Courts for imposition of penalty in quasi criminal
proceedings such as the present case are not wholly satisfied and
hence, imposition of an exorbitant penalty totalling to Rs.98.35
Crores be reduced to Rs.15 Crores. It is this reduction in the amount
of penalty which is assailed by Appellant in the present Appeals. The
penalties as imposed by Special Director and as modified by the
Tribunal read as under:
Girdhari Lal Gupta vs D.H. Mehta And Anr. on 18 February, 1971
Smt. Katta Sujatha vs Fertilizers & Chem. Travancore Ltd. And ... on 23 August, 2002
Section 13 in The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Management Of Coimbatore District ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 3 November, 2004
In Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank (supra) , the
Supreme Court has explained the concept of proportionality in the
following manner: