TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Adjudication Proceedings Voided Due to Unconstitutional Law</h1> <h3>Sukumar Pyne Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Court held that the adjudication proceedings were void due to the unconstitutional nature of Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ... - Issues:Alleged contravention of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 as modified up to 1st July, 1959. Objection to adjudication proceedings based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and retrospective operation of amended Section 23(1)(a).Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to a notice by the Director of Enforcement for alleged contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The petitioner, involved in a jeweler business, was asked to show cause regarding foreign currency recovery at the business premises. The proceedings were based on Sections 23 and 23D of the Act governing adjudication processes.2. The petitioner raised objections on two grounds. Firstly, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 23(1)(a) and 23D under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the Director's discretion in selecting offenders for different modes of proceedings lacked a guiding principle, leading to discrimination, thus deeming the sections ultra vires the Constitution.3. Secondly, the petitioner argued against the retrospective application of the amended Section 23(1)(a) to an offense dating back to 1954. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's vested right to trial by a court and emphasized that the amendment altering the trial venue to the Director of Enforcement affected substantive rights, not mere procedure. Consequently, the provision for adjudication by the Director could not have retrospective effect.4. The Court concluded that the adjudication proceedings lacked jurisdiction due to the unconstitutional nature of Section 23(1)(a) and the non-retrospective applicability of the provision. As a result, the proceedings were quashed, and costs were imposed on the opposing parties. Additionally, the petitioner was granted leave to appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution for further legal recourse.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
