Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)Section 65 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Director Of Enforcement, Madras vs Rama Arangannal And Anr. on 29 August, 1980
4. Palekar opposes the request for condonation of delay and raised two further questions, viz. (i) that the Director of Enforcement who has moved the application as also the appeal, has no locus standi to act on behalf of the Union of India and (ii) that the appeal is not maintainable in law. I do not propose to go into the question of locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to act on behalf of the Union on India. Here also I must make it clear that there is good authority in support of the stand taken by Palekar and that authority is to be found in Director of Enforcement, Madras v. Rama Arangannal and another, reported at . I do not propose to go into that question, in the matter before me, because a request was made on behalf of the appellant to obtain proper instructions on the subject. On this very ground, an adjournment was granted earlier, but to no avail. Be that as it may, if proper instructions have not been made available, it will not be fair to sustain the objection in regard to locus standi of the Director to initiate proceedings on behalf of the Union of India. Keeping that objection in abeyence, I move on to the contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
Pandharinath Kishtiah Renguntawar vs Deputy Director Of Enforcement, ... on 5 October, 1978
Next, there was a consideration of the waiver made by Carne. Apparently, Carne made it clear that there was no question of reimbursement by Palekar and that Johnson USA, would be waiving the same. The Chairman then proceeded to consider whether the waiver would take the case of Palekar within the purview of section 8(1) of the FERA. He held that the subsequent conduct on the part of Johnson USA, resulted in a gift of foreign exchange to Palekar which was covered by the words "otherwise acquired" occurring in section 8(1) of the FERA. Counsel representing Palekar referred to a judgement of this Court in Pandharinath v. Deputy Director of Enforcement, 1979 Mh.L.J. 176. This judgement was considered by the Chairman and held to be inapplicable to the case of Palekar. Paras 9 and 10 of the judgement which are important need reproduction and say thus--
1