Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)
Reserve Bank Of India And Union Of India ... vs Jacqueline Chandani And Others on 8 September, 1993
cites
Section 14 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kishan Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 23 March, 1990
In Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, , reference has been made to the legislative power to define a word even artificially. When there could be no dispute that the definition given to the phrase "person resident in India" in section 2(p) of the Act is restrictive and in none of clauses (i) to (iv) the word resident" or "residence" has been used and, on the other hand, the specific mention made is "stay", it is not necessary to refer to the dictionary meaning of those words or as to how those words have been interpreted in various other statutes. With this idea of the definition given in sub-section 2(p), we may now proceed to find out whether in the case of non-citizen who comes within the purview of section 2(p)(iii)(c) of the Act stay in India for any particular period is a must or not. For easy reference, we may have an idea of the various sub-sections of section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. The said section reads as hereunder :
Section 2 in The Citizenship Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Citizenship Act, 1955
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Enforcement Directorate, Government ... vs Fr. J.M. Stevens on 13 August, 1984
30. The other extreme argument advanced by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the stay of a non-citizen in India is always regulated by the visa issued in his favour and, therefore, his stay is always for a definite certain period and hence cannot be termed under any circumstance to be a person resident in India has to be only mentioned to be rejected. If that interpretation is accepted, under no circumstances a non-citizen could be construed as a person resident in India and the entire section 2(p)(iii) which refers to persons who are not citizens of India would be rendered otiose. It may also be noticed that in sub-section (d) what has been mentioned is, not that his stay should be for a definite certain period and the stress is, on the intention of the person to stay in India for an uncertain period. If, the intention of the person to stay in India is for an uncertain period, though by the visa that is issued in his favour his stay is permitted only for a certain period, it would be a case which falls within the purview of section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. A Division Bench decision of this court in Enforcement Directorate v. Father J. M. Stevens [1985] ILR Kar 1590; [1986) 60 Comp Cas 670 was also brought to our notice for interpretation of this clause occurring in section 2(p) of the Act. It appears that this decision is of no assistance to either of the parties in the present case for more than one reason. That was a case where the action was taken for contravention of the provisions of the Act for a period prior to the amendment of the notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India on May 21, 1979. Therefore, the appellate board in that case came to the conclusion that, that person was not a person domiciled in India and, therefore, the exemption in the notification applied to him in all its force and their Lordships agreed with this finding of the appellate board. It was also pointed out, no foundation had been laid in that case or facts brought on record to treat the foreign national proceeded against in that case as a person resident in India. Therefore, the decision rendered therein was purely on the basis that no sufficient foundation had been laid to hold that he was a person resident in India. It may be noticed that in section 2(p) of the Act, as it now exists and also the notifications of the Reserve Bank of India and the Union of India applicable to the facts of this case, the expression "not domiciled therein" does not occur anywhere and, therefore, the concurrence of their Lordship with the conclusion of the appellate board that the person proceeded against was not a person domiciled in India could have little impact on the question under consideration regarding interpretation of section 2(p)(iii)(c) of the Act.
K.N. Mehta vs Director Of Enforcement And Others on 20 May, 1982
However, the decision of the Delhi High Court in K. N. Mehta v. Director of Enforcement (1985] ECC 286; [1985] 57 Comp Cas 820, 828 would support the view which we propose to take in these appeals. After referring to the definition given in section 2(p) of the Act, this is what His Lordship observed :