FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999

Facts: Mr. Shailendra Swarup, a former practicing advocate of the Supreme Court who was the Director of company which goes by the name of Modi Xerox Ltd.(MXL).The appellant argued against the notice of the Enforcement Directorate by stating that he was not associated completely with the aforementioned company, he was only the part-time non-executive Director of MXL Ltd. hence, neither he was the employee of the company nor he held any executive position in the same. Further, a penalty was imposed on all the Directors including Mr. Shailendra Swarup and the order was validated in the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

Held: The liability to be proceeded with for offence under Section 68 of the FERA, 1973 depends on the role one plays in the affairs of the company and not on mere designation or status and thus the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

Facts: Mr. Shailendra Swarup, a former practicing advocate of the Supreme Court who was the Director of company which goes by the name of Modi Xerox Ltd.(MXL).The appellant argued against the notice of the Enforcement Directorate by stating that he was not associated completely with the aforementioned company, he was only the part-time non-executive Director of MXL Ltd. hence, neither he was the employee of the company nor he held any executive position in the same. Further, a penalty was imposed on all the Directors including Mr. Shailendra Swarup and the order was validated in the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

Held: The liability to be proceeded with for offence under Section 68 of the FERA, 1973 depends on the role one plays in the affairs of the company and not on mere designation or status and thus the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

Facts: Mr. Shailendra Swarup, a former practicing advocate of the Supreme Court who was the Director of company which goes by the name of Modi Xerox Ltd.(MXL).The appellant argued against the notice of the Enforcement Directorate by stating that he was not associated completely with the aforementioned company, he was only the part-time non-executive Director of MXL Ltd. hence, neither he was the employee of the company nor he held any executive position in the same. Further, a penalty was imposed on all the Directors including Mr. Shailendra Swarup and the order was validated in the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

Held: The liability to be proceeded with for offence under Section 68 of the FERA, 1973 depends on the role one plays in the affairs of the company and not on mere designation or status and thus the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

Facts: The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint against the company Maars Software International Ltd before the Special Director of Enforcement. The complaint was on the dealings of the Company in their business operations.The Adjudicating Authority allowed the complaint holding that the Company had contravened the provisions of FEMA and liable to pay penalty. After that Tribunal set aside the order directing the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the Company in these proceedings for filing the appeals. The High Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Held: The High Court should have taken into consideration the said material with a view to decide as to whether it was relevant and sufficient, and whether it could justify the appellant's case as contemplated under Section 8 of FEMA and thus the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Facts: The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint against the company Maars Software International Ltd before the Special Director of Enforcement. The complaint was on the dealings of the Company in their business operations.The Adjudicating Authority allowed the complaint holding that the Company had contravened the provisions of FEMA and liable to pay penalty. After that Tribunal set aside the order directing the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the Company in these proceedings for filing the appeals. The High Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Held: The High Court should have taken into consideration the said material with a view to decide as to whether it was relevant and sufficient, and whether it could justify the appellant's case as contemplated under Section 8 of FEMA and thus the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Facts: The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint against the company Maars Software International Ltd before the Special Director of Enforcement. The complaint was on the dealings of the Company in their business operations.The Adjudicating Authority allowed the complaint holding that the Company had contravened the provisions of FEMA and liable to pay penalty. After that Tribunal set aside the order directing the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the Company in these proceedings for filing the appeals. The High Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Held: The High Court should have taken into consideration the said material with a view to decide as to whether it was relevant and sufficient, and whether it could justify the appellant's case as contemplated under Section 8 of FEMA and thus the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Facts: The appellant Suborno Bose was the Managing Director and responsible for the conduct of business of the company and he is held for being guilty of contravention of provisions of FEMA and guidelines of RBI. Therefore the penalty was imposed on him by Adjudicating authority of Rs.10 lakhs which is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Managing Director is accordingly dismissed.

Held: The appellant was also liable to proceed with the contravention by the Company of which he became the Managing Director and for penalty as prescribed for the contravention of Section 10(6) read with Sections 46 and 47 of the FEMA Act. The first appellate authority and the High Court justified to the view taken by the adjudicating authority.

Facts: The appellant Suborno Bose was the Managing Director and responsible for the conduct of business of the company and he is held for being guilty of contravention of provisions of FEMA and guidelines of RBI. Therefore the penalty was imposed on him by Adjudicating authority of Rs.10 lakhs which is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Managing Director is accordingly dismissed.

Held: The appellant was also liable to proceed with the contravention by the Company of which he became the Managing Director and for penalty as prescribed for the contravention of Section 10(6) read with Sections 46 and 47 of the FEMA Act. The first appellate authority and the High Court justified to the view taken by the adjudicating authority.

Facts: The appellant Suborno Bose was the Managing Director and responsible for the conduct of business of the company and he is held for being guilty of contravention of provisions of FEMA and guidelines of RBI. Therefore the penalty was imposed on him by Adjudicating authority of Rs.10 lakhs which is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Managing Director is accordingly dismissed.

Held: The appellant was also liable to proceed with the contravention by the Company of which he became the Managing Director and for penalty as prescribed for the contravention of Section 10(6) read with Sections 46 and 47 of the FEMA Act. The first appellate authority and the High Court justified to the view taken by the adjudicating authority.

Facts: The High Court declared that it is ultra vires under Section 21(1)(b) of Act that the appointment of Respondents who were appointed as part time members and acting as the Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal.

Held: Disqualified member could not hold post of a Chairperson as a stop gap arrangement. Thus the judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal by the Chairperson or Members who were not qualified, the appointments of the respondents had clarified that the orders and judgments delivered by them during the period they had continued to function as district judges on the basis of invalid appointments could not be rendered as legally invalid and void and so they are treated as valid and binding and relying on the said dictum, the position are clarified.

Facts: The High Court declared that it is ultra vires under Section 21(1)(b) of Act that the appointment of Respondents who were appointed as part time members and acting as the Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal.

Held: Disqualified member could not hold post of a Chairperson as a stop gap arrangement. Thus the judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal by the Chairperson or Members who were not qualified, the appointments of the respondents had clarified that the orders and judgments delivered by them during the period they had continued to function as district judges on the basis of invalid appointments could not be rendered as legally invalid and void and so they are treated as valid and binding and relying on the said dictum, the position are clarified.

Facts: The High Court declared that it is ultra vires under Section 21(1)(b) of Act that the appointment of Respondents who were appointed as part time members and acting as the Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal.

Held: Disqualified member could not hold post of a Chairperson as a stop gap arrangement. Thus the judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal by the Chairperson or Members who were not qualified, the appointments of the respondents had clarified that the orders and judgments delivered by them during the period they had continued to function as district judges on the basis of invalid appointments could not be rendered as legally invalid and void and so they are treated as valid and binding and relying on the said dictum, the position are clarified.

Facts: Manohar Lal Sharma has prayed for quashing Press Note Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of (2012 Series) stating that it is unconstitutional and without any authority of law. To that the Policy of Foreign Direct Investment (F.D.I) is reviewed and so the Central Government has no authority to formulate F.D.I. Policy.

Held: The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion as per the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 is allocated the subject of Direct foreign and non-resident investment in industrial and service projects, excluding functions entrusted to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, thus, the DIPP is empowered to make policy pronouncements on FDI and so Central Government has no authority to formulate FDI Policy. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is empowered to prohibit, restrict or regulate various types of foreign exchange transactions, including FDI and so in India by regulations. RBI Regulates foreign investment in India in accordance with Government of India's policy.