https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102025 Section 28(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act required Reserve Bank of India permission before a foreign company could act as technical or management adviser in India, and the Court treated the decisive question as whether such permission had in fact been granted. Reading section 28 with section 73(4) and the Exchange Control Manual procedure, the Court held that prior government approval, recordal of the collaboration, and RBI processing of remittance after verifying compliance showed substantive permission. The absence of Form FNC5 was only a procedural lapse and did not negate permission. The agreement was therefore not void under section 28(2), and the appeal failed. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:38:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102025 Section 28(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act required Reserve Bank of India permission before a foreign company could act as technical or management adviser in India, and the Court treated the decisive question as whether such permission had in fact been granted. Reading section 28 with section 73(4) and the Exchange Control Manual procedure, the Court held that prior government approval, recordal of the collaboration, and RBI processing of remittance after verifying compliance showed substantive permission. The absence of Form FNC5 was only a procedural lapse and did not negate permission. The agreement was therefore not void under section 28(2), and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102025