SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 111

A. M. KHANWILKAR, INDU MALHOTRA, AJAY RASTOGI
Asha John Divianathan – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Malhotra – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The central issue in this appeal is in reference to Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 19731[For short, “the 1973 Act”]. To wit, transaction (specified in Section 31 of the 1973 Act) entered into in contravention of that provision is void or is only voidable and it can be voided at whose instance?

2. The undisputed facts are that one Mrs. F.L. Raitt, widow of late Mr. Charles Raitt, a foreigner and the owner of the property in question, gifted it to respondent No.1 (Vikram Malhotra) without obtaining previous permission of the Reserve Bank of India2[For short, “the RBI”] under Section 31 of the 1973 Act. Further, before executing the gift deed, she had executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Mr. R.P. David, father of appellant (Asha John Divianathan) and husband of respondent No.4 (Mrs. R.P. David, wife of Mr. R.P. David). That agreement was executed on 05.04.1976 whereunder the title deed of the schedule property was delivered by Mrs. F.L. Raitt to late Mr. R.P. David. However, Mrs. F.L. Raitt gifted the portion of schedule property admeasuring 12,306 square feet, vide gift deed dated 11.03.1977, in favour of respondent No.1 w


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top