S.S.NIJJAR, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
NATWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.- The central question of law arising in the appeal before this Court is whether a noticee served with show-cause notice under Rule 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") is entitled to demand to furnish all the documents in possession of the adjudicating authority including those documents upon which no reliance has been placed to issue a notice requiring him to show cause why an inquiry should not be held against him?
2. The adjudicating authority's refusal to supply all the documents as demanded by the appellants led to filing of the writ petitions by the appellants in the Delhi High Court which were heard and dismissed.
3. In order to consider and decide the issue that arises for our consideration, it is just and necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts.
Part I: Background facts
4. A complaint in writing has been filed by an officer authorised against the appellants under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "FEMA" or "the Act") in which certain serious allegations have been levelled against
(2008) 17 SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 543
(2006) 1 WLR 2994 : (2006) 3 All ER 689 (CA)
(2004) 2 AC 134: (2004) 2 WLR 335: (2004) 1 All ER 1269 : 2004 UKHL 3 (HL)
1971 AC 297: (1969) 3 WLR 706: (1969) 3 All ER 275 (HL)
(1970) 2 QB 417: (1970) 2 WLR 1009: (1970) 2 All ER 528 (CA), R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.