Legality of seizure and handover to Enforcement authorities - Validity of adjudication beyond the complaint's proposal u/s 16(3) of FEMA - HELD THAT:- We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. No reason to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court.

Penalty imposed under FEMA - petitioner was appointed as Vice President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”), and claims to have been appointed Chairman of the IPL governing body, a subcommittee of the BCCI - relief in this case is firstly against the BCCI on the ground that by-laws require the BCCI to indemnify the petitioner. HC decided [2024 (12) TMI 1149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that the BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI. HELD THAT:- Even if the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable the petitioner will be entitled to avail a civil remedy. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn making it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to avail such civil remedies as may be available to him in law.

Guilty of the offence u/s 6(4), 6(5) 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - fine imposed - Court [2014 (9) TMI 1085 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is of the view that the AO dated 24th March, 2004, and the impugned order of the AT to the extent they hold the appellant liable for contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA, cannot be sustained in law - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

Quashing of detention order - preventive detention - power of judicial review of detention orders - liberty to pursue statutory prosecution - Whether interference with the High Court's quashing of the detention order is warranted in view of the detention already undergone and the existence of a pending statutory complaint - HELD THAT:- The husband of respondent No. 1 was arrested on 02.09.2023. He remained in custody for couple of months, before he was released. Taking into consideration the detention period spent by the husband of respondent No. 1 and the fact that the authorities have already instituted a statutory complaint against him, which is pending adjudication, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment, at this stage. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the authorities to pursue the pending complaint in accordance with law.

Judicial review under Article 136 - No interference with High Court order - Compounding of offences to be decided in accordance with lawJudicial review under Article 136 - No interference with High Court order - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 dismissed and High Court order upheld - HELD THAT: - The Court, after hearing counsel, found no error in the High Court's effective order, specifically endorsing the position recorded in paragraph 109 of the impugned judgment. Having found no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court concluded that the Special Leave Petition did not merit intervention and accordingly dismissed the petition. Pending applications were directed to stand disposed of.SLP dismissed; no interference with the High Court order.Compounding of offences to be decided in accordance with law - Applications for compounding to be decided in accordance with law - HELD THAT: - The impugned judgment (paragraph 109) expressly records that applications for compounding shall be decided in accordance with law. The Supreme Court endorsed that position and did not proceed to adjudicate those applications itself. The matter of compounding is left for determination in conformity with the applicable legal rules and principles as recorded by the High Court. [Paras 109]Applications for compounding to be decided in accordance with law (left for appropriate authority/ forum to decide).Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed; the High Court's order is left undisturbed and the applications for compounding are to be decided in accordance with law as recorded in paragraph 109 of the impugned judgment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Right to appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - prima facie and tentative findings - appellate tribunal's power to examine all issues afresh - dismissal of special leave petitionRight to appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - The petitioners have a right to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that, while it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, the petitioners nonetheless possess the statutory right to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. This entitlement was recorded as a matter of right available to the petitioners and was not curtailed by the present order. The Court accordingly dismissed the special leave petitions while leaving open the appellate remedy under the Act.Petitioners entitled to file an appeal under Section 19 of the FEMA; special leave petitions dismissed.Prima facie and tentative findings - appellate tribunal's power to examine all issues afresh - The observations and findings in the impugned judgment are tentative and prima facie, and the appellate tribunal is entitled to examine all issues and contentions in accordance with law. - HELD THAT: - The Court qualified its non-interference by declaring that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment are tentative and prima facie only. It directed that the appellate tribunal, upon admission of an appeal, may go into all issues and contentions afresh and decide them in accordance with law. The effect of this direction is that the appellate forum is not precluded from undertaking a full consideration of the merits and may depart from the impugned court's tentative conclusions if justified on a full hearing.Impugned findings treated as tentative; appellate tribunal to consider all issues and contentions on appeal.Final Conclusion: Special leave petitions dismissed; petitioners retain the statutory right to appeal under Section 19 of the FEMA, and the appellate tribunal is directed to consider all issues afresh, the impugned findings being tentative and prima facie.

Stay of recovery proceedings - constitution of Tribunal - appointment of Tribunal members - hearings before Tribunal in absence of Chairman - judicial remedy before TribunalStay of recovery proceedings - appointment of Tribunal members - Interim application for stay (IA No. 87842/2022) dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Court found the averments in the stay application unsatisfactory and noted that the grievance of the petitioner was mitigated by the Government's decision to notify members of the Tribunal on 11.07.2022 with the official notification to be issued shortly. In those circumstances the Court declined to grant the interim relief sought and dismissed the application.Application dismissed.Hearings before Tribunal in absence of Chairman - constitution of Tribunal - judicial remedy before Tribunal - Question whether hearings can proceed before the Tribunal in respect of matters listed before it in the absence of the Chairman, and whether a general stay of recovery proceedings should be directed, was left undecided and taken for further consideration. - HELD THAT: - The Court posed inquiries as to whether hearings could lawfully take place before the Tribunal if members are appointed but the Chairman is absent, and whether a blanket stay of recovery proceedings should be ordered given delays in constituting the Tribunal which forced parties to approach the High Court. The learned ASG sought time to obtain instructions. The Court did not adjudicate these questions on merits and listed the matter for further hearing on 02.08.2022.Issue reserved/listed for further hearing.Final Conclusion: The interim stay application was dismissed; the Government's decision to notify Tribunal members was recorded as addressing the petitioner's primary grievance; ancillary questions regarding conduct of hearings without a Chairman and any broad stay of recovery proceedings were not decided and have been reserved for further consideration at the next listing.

Contempt of court - stay order - release of amounts in compliance with court order - constitution of Tribunal - Search-cum-Selection Committee - administrative continuity of tribunal - automatic stay on filing of appeal - interim relief in absence of the TribunalContempt of court - stay order - release of amounts in compliance with court order - Prima facie contempt for non-release of amounts despite a stay order and the Court's recording of the respondents' undertaking. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that notwithstanding the stay order dated 29.4.2022, the amounts ordered by the Single Judge have not been released. On a specific query the learned Additional Solicitor General accepted non-compliance and, prima facie, the conduct amounted to contempt of this Court's orders. The respondents, through the learned ASG, gave an undertaking on the record that the amounts would be released within three days and requested that the Court hold its hand on issuing notice of contempt. The Court recorded that undertaking and took it on record.Court recorded the respondents' undertaking to release the amounts within three days and, on that basis, refrained from issuing a contempt notice at that stage.Constitution of Tribunal - Search-cum-Selection Committee - administrative continuity of tribunal - Status report on constitution of the Tribunal is incomplete and further documentary particulars are directed to be produced. - HELD THAT: - The affidavit states that a Search cum Selection Committee was appointed by an order dated 26.10.2001 and that the process thereafter is ongoing. The Court noted that the Chairman demitted office on 21.9.2019 and that subsequently a Single Member Tribunal and later occupants functioned only on interim/extension terms, leaving a gap in adjudicatory continuity. The Court held that the status report did not present a complete picture and required detailed particulars and supporting documents showing steps taken from at least six months prior to 21.9.2019 up to the department order dated 26.10.2021 to fill the post of Chairman.Respondents directed to file detailed steps and supporting documents relating to the process of constituting/filling the post of Chairman for the period specified.Automatic stay on filing of appeal - interim relief in absence of the Tribunal - Question whether filing of an appeal should operate as an automatic stay is deferred for further consideration. - HELD THAT: - The Court declined at this stage to decide the broader legal question of whether the mere filing of an appeal ought to produce an automatic stay, observing that the issue is of larger import particularly in the context of litigants seeking interim relief in the absence of a functioning Tribunal. The matter was adjourned for fuller hearing.Consideration of whether filing an appeal should amount to automatic stay is deferred; matter listed for further hearing on 19th July, 2022.Final Conclusion: The Court recorded the respondents' undertaking to release the amounts within three days and, on that basis, has not issued contempt notice at this stage; it directed production of detailed documentary steps concerning constitution/filling of the Tribunal's Chairman post for the period specified and deferred determination of whether filing an appeal should automatically operate as a stay, listing the matter on 19 July 2022.

Statutory appeal - pre-deposit requirement - limitation and non-suit for delay - appellate authority's discretion to consider exemption - liberty to file appeal within specified timeStatutory appeal - The petitioner must pursue the remedy of statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority against the final order dated 31.01.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that, as a final order has been passed by the competent authority on 31.01.2019, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petitions by granting liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within a limited period and directed that the appeal be entertained by the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits if filed in time.Petitioner granted liberty to file the statutory appeal within three weeks; the appeal to be decided on merits if filed within that period.Pre-deposit requirement - appellate authority's discretion to consider exemption - Exemption from the requirement of pre-deposit was directed in respect of the petitioner (M. Umesh) if he files the statutory appeal within the time allowed. - HELD THAT: - Having noted the petitioner's contention that he had resigned in 2006 and had no causal connection with the company's affairs at the relevant time, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to exempt the petitioner from the requirement of making the pre-deposit ordinarily mandated for prosecuting the statutory appeal. The Court qualified this relief by conferring it specifically on the petitioner named and confined it to the event that the appeal is filed within the period granted. Separately, the Court observed that the Appellate Authority may consider any formal application for exemption from 100% pre-deposit on its merits and in accordance with law, without expressing any final view on that substantive application.Appellate Authority shall not insist on pre-deposit from M. Umesh for the appeal filed within the time granted; any formal application for exemption may be considered on merits.Limitation and non-suit for delay - liberty to file appeal within specified time - The petitioner shall not be non-suited on the ground of limitation if the statutory appeal is filed within three weeks, but the limited relief regarding limitation will be withdrawn if the appeal is filed beyond that period. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the petitioner had been pursuing remedies before the High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court, and in that background directed that the Appellate Authority should not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation provided it is filed within three weeks from the date of the order. The Court made clear that this indulgence is time bound: if the petitioner's appeal is not filed within three weeks, the limited relief concerning the period of limitation shall cease to apply and the Appellate Authority may proceed on the question of limitation in the ordinary manner.If the appeal is filed within three weeks, the Appellate Authority shall not non-suit the petitioner on limitation; if filed later, the limitation relief is withdrawn.Representation and amendment of pleadings - Permission was granted for change of Advocate-on-Record and for the Official Liquidator to represent the petitioner-company, with direction to carry out necessary amendment in the memo of petition and to list the matter as requested. - HELD THAT: - In the related application, the Court allowed discharge of the existing Advocate on Record and recorded that Mr. M. Jayakumar, Official Liquidator, would represent the petitioner company. The Court directed that the necessary amendment in the memo of petition be effected and acceded to the request to list the matter after two weeks, thereby permitting the procedural formalities to be regularised.Change of representation allowed; Official Liquidator to represent the petitioner-company, with directions to amend the memo and list as requested.Final Conclusion: Special Leave Petitions disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal within three weeks; if filed in time the Appellate Authority shall adjudicate on merits, shall not insist on pre-deposit from M. Umesh and shall not non-suit him on limitation; the indulgences are time bound and may be withdrawn if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period; related procedural applications regarding representation and amendments were allowed.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition under Article 136 dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Summary order. Two weeks' time granted to learned counsel for the appellants to file an affidavit with proof of dasti service upon the sole respondent in C.A. Nos. 4237-4261 of 2011.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Summary order. Special leave petitions dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Judicial review of show cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act - Prematurity of challenge to proposed adjudication proceedings As decided by HC [2015 (10) TMI 2873 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] show cause notice issued on prima facie material does not embody a finding against the noticee. The question whether the noticee was involved in the affairs of the company is to be pleaded and established before the Adjudicating Authority, which is required to consider such submissions before making its final order. HELD THAT:- The special leave petitions were dismissed.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed and delay condoned; any observations in the impugned order regarding the merits shall have no bearing at the later stage of the proceedings.

Interim stay of proceedings - stay of further proceedings in pending arbitration petition - issue of notice returnable - dasti service permittedInterim stay of proceedings - stay of further proceedings in pending arbitration petition - issue of notice returnable - dasti service permitted - Interim directions pending adjudication in the Supreme Court - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court issued notice returnable in ten weeks and permitted dasti service in addition to ordinary process. Pending that adjudication, the Court ordered that further proceedings in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 525 of 2008 before the High Court shall remain stayed. No reasons for the interim order are recorded in the short order; the directions are operative only as an interim measure until further orders of this Court.Notice issued returnable in ten weeks, dasti service permitted, and further proceedings in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 525 of 2008 before the High Court stayed meanwhile.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court granted interim relief by issuing notice (returnable in ten weeks), permitting dasti service, and staying further proceedings in the specified High Court arbitration petition until further orders.

Summary order. Delay condoned; leave granted; matter tagged with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C.) No. 8442/2010.

Passport issuance - issuance without limitation for travel and studies - executive reconsideration in case of subsequent prejudice to State interests - absence of adverse materialPassport issuance - absence of adverse material - issuance without limitation for travel and studies - executive reconsideration in case of subsequent prejudice to State interests - Grant of passport to the petitioner without limitations to enable him to pursue studies and travel abroad, subject to a condition permitting later executive reconsideration if his activities are found prejudicial to the interest of the State. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, upon perusal of the record, there was no adverse material against the petitioner. In view of that factual position, the Court directed that the passport be issued without any limitation to enable the petitioner to pursue his studies and travel abroad. The Court conditioned the grant on the respondents' liberty to reconsider the matter in future if the petitioner's activities are subsequently found to be prejudicial to the interest of the State. The respondents were directed to issue the passport within four weeks.Passport to be issued without limitation for travel and studies; respondents may reconsider the grant if subsequent adverse material emerges; passport to be issued within four weeks.Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed of by directing issuance of passport without limitation to enable overseas study and travel, subject to the respondents' liberty to reconsider the matter if later evidence shows prejudice to State interests; issuance to occur within four weeks.

Leave to Appeal - Interim Stay of Impugned Order - Right to File Revised Entitlement upon Success in Appeal - Expedited Hearing - Filing of Informal Paper BooksLeave to Appeal - Grant of leave to entertain the petition (special leave to appeal). - HELD THAT: - The Court granted leave to appeal, thereby permitting the matter to be placed before this Court for final adjudication. No substantive reasoning is recorded beyond the formal grant of leave.Leave granted.Interim Stay of Impugned Order - Right to File Revised Entitlement upon Success in Appeal - Interim stay of the impugned order and preservation of the appellant's right to file a revised entitlement if the appeal succeeds. - HELD THAT: - The Court stayed the operation of the impugned order pending the hearing of the appeal. The Additional Solicitor General stated that the appellant may file the requisite application by the stipulated date and that, should the appellant succeed in the appeal before this Court, he would be entitled to file a revised entitlement. The order records and implements this position as the interim relief granted.Operation of the impugned order stayed; appellant's right to file revised entitlement preserved subject to success in appeal and compliance with filing timelines.Expedited Hearing - Filing of Informal Paper Books - Expedition of hearing and procedural direction for filing of informal paper books by the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Court ordered that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. It directed the appellant to file informal paper books containing records of the lower courts, permitting these papers to be prepared in any manner and not mandating formal printing. This is a procedural direction to facilitate an accelerated hearing.Hearing expedited; appellant to file informal paper books as directed.Final Conclusion: Leave to appeal granted; interim stay of the impugned order imposed with preservation of the appellant's right to file a revised entitlement if successful in the appeal; hearing expedited and procedural directions given for filing informal paper books.

Leave to amend - issue of notice on amendment application - permission to file application within stipulated date - right to file revised entitlement on successful appeal - expedited hearing - filing of informal paper booksLeave to amend - issue of notice on amendment application - Grant of leave and issuance of notice on the application for amendment. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted leave and directed that notice be issued on the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. The order records the Court's acceptance of the amendment application for consideration and commands issuance of notice to the respondents so that the application may be adjudicated in the proceedings before this Court.Leave to amend granted and notice directed to be issued on the amendment application.Permission to file application within stipulated date - right to file revised entitlement on successful appeal - Permissibility and timeline for the appellant to file the amendment application and entitlement to later file revised claims if the appeal succeeds. - HELD THAT: - The Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the appellant may file the application in accordance with law within the stipulated date of 31.3.2006. The Court recorded that, should the petitioner succeed in the appeal before this Court, he would be entitled to file a revised entitlement. The recordings operate as directions that the application be filed within the stated timeline and that any revision of claimed entitlement may be sought only upon a favourable outcome of the appeal.Applicant permitted to file the amendment application within the stipulated date; entitlement to file revised entitlement recognised contingent on success in the appeal.Expedited hearing - filing of informal paper books - Directions for expedition of hearing and mode of filing records by the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. It further directed the appellant to file informal paper books containing the records of the lower courts, permitting the paper books to be prepared in any manner and not necessarily by printing. These are procedural directions to facilitate an accelerated disposal of the appeal and convenient presentation of the record.Hearing expedited; appellant directed to file informal paper books of the lower court records in any convenient form.Final Conclusion: The Court granted leave to amend and ordered issuance of notice on the amendment application, permitted filing of that application within the stipulated date with a recorded entitlement to file revised claims if the appeal succeeds, expedited the hearing, and directed the appellant to file informal paper books of the lower court records.