Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
This is a legal case involving allegations of unauthorized transfer of funds from a Non-Resident External (NRE) account by a bank. The key points are: The suit was filed within the limitation period and the court fee deficiency was cured. There was no evidence that the plaintiff No. 2 had changed her residential status from NRI to resident Indian and informed the bank. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the instructions on the cheque were not given by plaintiff No. 2 but written by the bank. The plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof regarding the improper encashment of the cheque. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) provisions were not applicable as no complaint was filed with the Enforcement Directorate and the plaintiffs failed to show how FERA applied against the bank. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery of any amount from the bank.
This is a legal case involving allegations of unauthorized transfer of funds from a Non-Resident External (NRE) account by a bank. The key points are: The suit was filed within the limitation period and the court fee deficiency was cured. There was no evidence that the plaintiff No. 2 had changed her residential status from NRI to resident Indian and informed the bank. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the instructions on the cheque were not given by plaintiff No. 2 but written by the bank. The plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof regarding the improper encashment of the cheque. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) provisions were not applicable as no complaint was filed with the Enforcement Directorate and the plaintiffs failed to show how FERA applied against the bank. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery of any amount from the bank.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
