Resident in India under exchange-control law requires intent for an uncertain stay, not mere temporary presence for employment.

For exchange-control purposes, "resident in India" was construed to mean a person staying with the intention of remaining for an uncertain or indefinite period, not a foreign national on a fixed-term stay in India with permanent residence and assets abroad. On that construction, the prohibitions and repatriation obligations under the 1947 Act did not apply to the appellants, although the traveller-cheque contravention remained unaffected because the foreign exchange was held while physically in India. The commentary also notes that the Delhi High Court treated the appeals as maintainable under section 54, using the residence-based forum rule to avoid defeating appellate access.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were "persons resident in India" for the purposes of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, so as to attract the prohibitions and obligations relating to foreign exchange dealings and repatriation. (ii) Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were "persons resident in India" for the purposes of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, so as to attract the prohibitions and obligations relating to foreign exchange dealings and repatriation.

Analysis: The expression "resident in India" under the 1947 Act had to be understood in the context and purpose of exchange control legislation. Residence was linked to an intention to stay for an uncertain or indefinite period, and not to mere physical presence or absence of Indian domicile. A foreign national who had come to India for employment for a fixed period, while retaining permanent residence and assets abroad, could not be treated as a resident in India merely because of temporary stay in the country. The definition later introduced in section 2(p)(iii) of the 1973 Act supported that construction. On that basis, the obligations to repatriate foreign exchange obtained abroad and the prohibitions on foreign exchange dealings outside the country did not apply to the appellants, though the traveller-cheque violation remained unaffected because the appellant was physically in India when the foreign exchange was held.

Conclusion: The appellants were not persons resident in India for the purposes of the 1947 Act, except that the penalty relating to the traveller cheques was rightly sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: Explanation I to section 54 was designed to confer a forum on the aggrieved party by reference to residence, business, or personal work for gain. Where the appellants were foreign nationals no longer residing in India, and the Board whose order was challenged sat at Delhi, a rigid insistence on a place of ordinary residence would defeat the right of appeal. The objection was also raised too late after admission and hearing on merits. In the circumstances, the court treated the appeals as maintainable in Delhi.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

Final Conclusion: The findings of contravention were set aside except for the traveller-cheque count, the territorial objection failed, and the appeals succeeded in part with the wife's appeal allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For exchange-control legislation, "resident in India" means a person who stays with the intention of remaining for an uncertain period, and a temporary sojourn for employment or other fixed purpose does not by itself attract the statutory prohibitions reserved for residents.

---