<?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>1975 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99253</link>
    <description>Section 20(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed distributively to cover bankers as well as authorised dealers and other persons within the provision, enabling the Reserve Bank to issue directions securing compliance with the Act. On that construction, a direction preventing withdrawals from accounts holding monies subject to pending adjudication and confiscation proceedings was within power. Prior notice or an antecedent enquiry was not required because such procedure would defeat the object of securing the amounts, and the direction disclosed consideration of the relevant circumstances, supported by independent application of mind. The blocking direction was therefore valid and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:05:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99253</link>
      <description>Section 20(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed distributively to cover bankers as well as authorised dealers and other persons within the provision, enabling the Reserve Bank to issue directions securing compliance with the Act. On that construction, a direction preventing withdrawals from accounts holding monies subject to pending adjudication and confiscation proceedings was within power. Prior notice or an antecedent enquiry was not required because such procedure would defeat the object of securing the amounts, and the direction disclosed consideration of the relevant circumstances, supported by independent application of mind. The blocking direction was therefore valid and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>