Advanced Search Results

Deputy Director of Enforcement Vs. A.M. Ceaser

Court : Chennai

Subject : CustomsCriminal

Acts : Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 8, 8(1), 9, 9(1), 40, 40(3) and 56(1); Evidence Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 164 and 313; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193 and 228; Constitution of India - Article 20(3)

Reported in : 1999(113)ELT804(Mad)

the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not understood the difference between the confession under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and the statement under Section 40(3) of FERA and because of this lack of understanding of the

K. Sadasivam Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Dte

Court : Chennai

Subject : FERACriminal

Acts : Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 52 and 57; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 309, 309(1), 309(2), 313 and 482

Reported in : 1999(105)ELT269(Mad)

Matched in: Advocate R. Loganathan, Adv. K. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor 'FERA'

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : FERA

Acts : Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Sections 3 and 5; Foregin Exchange Regulation Act - Sections 4, 5,8(1), 19A, 25(1), 26, 33(2), 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 61, and 62; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 6, 154, 155(2), 188 and 482

Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)471; AIR1996SC2402; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)187; [1997]88CompCas326(SC); 1996CriLJ3480; (2001)1GLR907; JT1996(6)SC314; 1996(5)SCALE203; (1996)9SCC735; [1996]Supp3SCR127

of FERA, the offences punishable under Section 56 of FERA were non-cognizable within the meaning of Code of Criminal procedure and it was submitted that in order to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the aforesaid application for permission

S.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : FERA

1973 („FERA‟), is an off-shoot of the 'Jain Hawala Diaries' case which ended in the quashing of the criminal proceedings as a result of the judgment of the High Court upheld by the Supreme Court in Central

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Cabot International Capital ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Securities and Exchange Board in India Act, 1992 - Sections 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, 15F, 15G, 15H, 15HA, 15HB, 15I and 15J; Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - Regulation 3, 3(1) and 3(4)

Reported in : 2004(4)BomCR700; [2005]123CompCas841(Bom); (2004)2CompLJ363(Bom); [2004]51SCL307(Bom)

in nature. Proceedings under Chapter VI-A relating to levy of penalties are adjudicatory in nature and arc not criminal proceedings. The Adjudicating Officer performs quasi-judicial functions and does not act as a Court, but acts for the … Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George : [1965]1SCR123 (3 Judges) the Supreme Court had earlier held that offences under FERA were absolute offences and not conditioned by guilty intent or mens rea.D. Whether penalty should be imposed for

M.Shobana Vs. Assistant Director at the Directorate of Enforcement

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

along with accused filed a permission petition and compound petition before the trial Court. The defacto complainant/informant filed Criminal O.P.No.14032 of 2011 for further investigation which was allowed by this Court on 28.09.2011 where a direction was … of 2011, it is admitted in para 11 as 'It is submitted that the violation of FEMA and FERA Acts should be enquired by the Directorate of Enforcement and the respondents have no role to play'. The

Chennai Textile Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 12(3); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)

Reported in : [2002]125STC107(Mad)

or omission 'made punishable by any law for the time being in force'. The proceedings under Section 23(1)(a) FERA, 1947 are 'adjudicatory' in nature and character and are not 'criminal proceedings'. The officers of the Enforcement Directorate … that the imposition of penalty under fiscal laws cannot be construed as a punishment as contemplated by the criminal law and in any event, it is only under the criminal law, mens rea is considered as a

Md. Reshedur Rahaman

Court : Kolkata

Subject : CriminalCustoms

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 4(2), 167, 167(2) and 439; ;Customs Act - Section 104

Reported in : 1995CriLJ1177

(supra) was holding the ground one Deepak Mahajan was arrested for an offence punishable under the provisions of FERA and an application under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the Enforcement Directorate for remanding … ORDER1. Short point for determination in this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter Code for short) 1973 is whether a person arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act,

Star India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Section 49(3), 49(4), 49(1); Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 51; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.) - Section 156(3)

:- "before it can be said that any magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1)(a), Criminal P.C., he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must … adjudicating officer on 31/05/2002 which implies that the adjudicating officer had taken notice of the alleged contravention of FERA in terms of Section 51 of FERA and since the date 31/05/2002 falls within the period of two

Director of Enforcement Vs. M/S. Mctm. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Other ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : FERA

Acts : Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 - Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18(A and B) and 23(1); Constitution of India - Articles 20(2) and 226; General Clauses Act, 1897; Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Sections 167(8) and 188

Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)646; AIR1996SC1100; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)777; [1997]88CompCas449(SC); 1996CriLJ1623; 1996(54)ECC41; JT1996(1)SC79; 1996(1)SCALE133; (1996)2SCC471; [1996]1SCR215

23(1)(a) of FERA, 1947. The High Court also held that a finding regarding existence of 'mens- rea or criminal intent' for failure to repatriate foreign exchange was necessary before the respondents could be penalised for contravention of