<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (8) TMI 203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80063</link>
    <description>Interim permission to use frozen foreign exchange assets for loans to the petitioner&#039;s concerns was treated as ancillary to the main prayers for declaration, quashing and injunction, so it was not rejected as beyond the scope of the petition. The absence of an express repatriation prayer was not treated as fatal where the relief was necessarily implied in the substantive case. The Court also held that provisional use of the funds did not amount to granting final relief at an interlocutory stage because safeguards were imposed: the loans were to be interest free, and any repatriation after success would follow the prevailing exchange rate. The motion was therefore allowed on conditions to preserve the value and utility of the funds pending final disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80063</link>
      <description>Interim permission to use frozen foreign exchange assets for loans to the petitioner&#039;s concerns was treated as ancillary to the main prayers for declaration, quashing and injunction, so it was not rejected as beyond the scope of the petition. The absence of an express repatriation prayer was not treated as fatal where the relief was necessarily implied in the substantive case. The Court also held that provisional use of the funds did not amount to granting final relief at an interlocutory stage because safeguards were imposed: the loans were to be interest free, and any repatriation after success would follow the prevailing exchange rate. The motion was therefore allowed on conditions to preserve the value and utility of the funds pending final disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>