Delhi HC Quashes RBI Order on FEMA ODI Regulations, Emphasizes Need for Reasonable Decisions

The Delhi High Court held jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging RBI's order under FEMA ODI Regulations. The court dismissed the appeal, quashing RBI's order dated 30.12.2019, emphasizing the need for RBI's decisions to be reasonable and aligned with FEMA's objectives. The court found RBI's reasons for rejection arbitrary and whimsical, not serving FEMA's purpose, and rejected the necessity of ED as a party in the proceedings. The court highlighted that ED's objections should not unduly influence RBI's decisions under Regulation 9(3) of FEMA ODI Regulations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Necessity of Enforcement Directorate (ED) as a party.
3. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
4. Concealment of material facts by the respondent.
5. Subjectivity of RBI's approval under FEMA ODI Regulations.
6. Role of ED in RBI's decision-making process.
7. Validity of reasons provided by RBI for rejecting the application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The appellant argued that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. However, the court found that the authorized dealer bank, State Bank of India, overseas branch New Delhi, was involved, and RBI had directed the respondent to approach the New Delhi Regional Office. Thus, the court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

2. Necessity of ED as a Party:
The appellant contended that ED was a necessary and proper party. The court disagreed, stating the writ petition challenged the RBI’s order under FEMA ODI Regulations, not any action by the ED. The court also noted that the ED had sufficient statutory power to act independently and its absence did not affect the adjudication of the matter.

3. Delay and Laches:
The appellant claimed the writ petition was delayed. The court noted the writ petition was filed on 17.06.2020, challenging the order dated 30.12.2019, and considering the COVID-19 lockdown, there was no undue delay warranting dismissal on this ground.

4. Concealment of Material Facts:
The appellant alleged the respondent concealed material facts. The court found no intentional or malicious concealment of relevant information by the respondent, thus rejecting this claim.

5. Subjectivity of RBI's Approval under FEMA ODI Regulations:
The appellant argued that RBI’s approval under Regulation 9 of FEMA ODI Regulations is based on subjective satisfaction. The court held that while RBI’s satisfaction is subjective, it must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in line with the purposes of FEMA. The court found RBI’s reasons for rejection, based on ongoing investigations by ED, were not sufficient grounds for denial.

6. Role of ED in RBI's Decision-Making Process:
The court examined whether RBI’s rejection was influenced by ED’s objections. It concluded that while RBI can seek inputs from ED, the final decision must align with FEMA’s objectives. The court found RBI’s reliance on ED’s objections without independent assessment was improper and not justified under Regulation 9(3).

7. Validity of Reasons Provided by RBI for Rejecting the Application:
The court scrutinized the reasons provided by RBI for rejecting the respondent’s application. It found the reasons arbitrary and whimsical, not furthering the scheme of FEMA. The court emphasized that mere existence of investigations by ED cannot be a ground for denying permission under FEMA ODI Regulations, especially when previous remittances were not misused.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision, quashing RBI’s order dated 30.12.2019, and dismissed the appeal. It reiterated that RBI’s decision must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in line with FEMA’s objectives, and that the reasons provided for rejection did not meet these criteria. The court also dismissed the application for impleadment by ED, stating ED was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.

---