Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + HC FEMA - 2014 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (1) TMI 692 - HC - FEMA


Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal complaint under FERA.
2. Lack of opportunity notice and document furnishing.
3. Role specification of accused Directors in the complaint.
4. Applicability of Circular on contravention amount.
5. Intentional default by the petitioners.
6. Continuance of proceedings based on complaint.

Analysis:
1. The petition sought the quashing of a criminal complaint under FERA against the petitioner-company and its directors. The petitioners argued that no opportunity notice was given before filing the complaint, documents were not furnished, and individual roles were not specified. The respondents contended that the contentions were untenable as the notice served constituted a valid notice under FERA.

2. The respondents maintained that opportunity notices were issued and documents were supplied to the petitioners, which the petitioners disputed. The court found these disputes raised triable issues that needed to be determined at trial. The petitioners' claim of no intentional default also raised a triable issue not determinable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. Regarding the role of the petitioners, the court found that the complaint justified the continuation of proceedings. The applicability of a Circular on contravention amount was discussed, with the court noting that the alleged contravention predated the Circular, and the prosecution was for contravention of substantive FERA provisions.

4. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioners to raise their pleas at the stage of framing charges, without commenting on the merits to avoid prejudice. The questions of the Circular's retrospective operation and vicarious liability were left open for consideration during the framing of charges.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the court's findings on each issue.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates