Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained to quash a show-cause notice issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the ground that it was vague and did not sufficiently particularise the directors' role in the alleged contravention.
Analysis: The notice sought to proceed against the petitioners as directors or persons in charge of the company for alleged contraventions under FERA. The challenge was that the notice did not set out specific facts showing how the company's conduct could be attributed to each director, and that a vague notice in quasi-judicial penalty proceedings denies a fair opportunity to answer the allegations. The Court accepted that, in principle, a show-cause notice must disclose adequate foundational facts and that vague or unspecific notice may be vulnerable. However, the Court held that the binding decisions of the Supreme Court had laid down a different approach in FERA matters, namely that persons served with such notices should ordinarily respond before the adjudicating authority and pursue statutory remedies if aggrieved, unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the challenge to the show-cause notice failed.