<?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>1993 (5) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103175</link>
    <description>Receipt of drafts in India on behalf of a person resident outside India may amount to a prima facie breach of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, because the prohibition covers payment received otherwise than through an authorised dealer and the Act&#039;s currency definition includes drafts and similar instruments. At the bail stage, the court accepted the prosecution version that the drafts were received and handed over to the non-resident, and rejected the argument that liability arose only on cash realisation or foreign-account credit. Bail was nevertheless granted because the investigation was at an early stage, evidence was largely documentary, the accused was not shown to be a flight risk, and conditions could secure attendance and cooperation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:19:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (5) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103175</link>
      <description>Receipt of drafts in India on behalf of a person resident outside India may amount to a prima facie breach of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, because the prohibition covers payment received otherwise than through an authorised dealer and the Act&#039;s currency definition includes drafts and similar instruments. At the bail stage, the court accepted the prosecution version that the drafts were received and handed over to the non-resident, and rejected the argument that liability arose only on cash realisation or foreign-account credit. Bail was nevertheless granted because the investigation was at an early stage, evidence was largely documentary, the accused was not shown to be a flight risk, and conditions could secure attendance and cooperation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>