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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 82

ABDUL HADI, P.SATHASIVAM
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
M. Shah Jehan – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:S. Veeraraghavan, A. Thiagarajan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the as 'the Act') is against the order dated 5-11-1984 of the Appellate Board under the said Act, modifying the order dated 9-8-1982 of the first Authority viz., the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate Madras 6

2. There were three contraventions under the Act, one under Section 9(1)(b), another under Section 9(1)(d) and yet another under Section 9(1)(e) of the Act. But even according to learned Counsel for the appellant, in this appeal we are concerned only with the contravention under Section 9(1)(b) by the respondent. Regarding the same, the first Authority levied penalty of Rs. 5, 000/- under Section 50 of the Act and also confiscated under Section 63 of the Act, the sum of Rs. 50, 000/- involved in the contravention, which was actually seized on 15-2-1982. But, the abovesaid modification made by the Appellate Board in the appeal preferred before it by the respondent is that while it increased the abovesaid penalty from Rs. 5, 000/- to Rs. 20, 000/- adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 52(5) of the Act, it set aside the order of the ab














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