https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103514 A prosecution for failure to pay a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not rendered premature merely because appeals against the adjudication orders were pending; the criminal complaint was an independent proceeding, the original penalty order remained operative absent a stay, and the complaints were maintainable. Territorial jurisdiction lay with the Madras court because the penalty was required to be paid at Madras and the alleged omission occurred where payment should have been made but was not made. The challenge to the prosecutions therefore failed on both prematurity and jurisdiction, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103514 A prosecution for failure to pay a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not rendered premature merely because appeals against the adjudication orders were pending; the criminal complaint was an independent proceeding, the original penalty order remained operative absent a stay, and the complaints were maintainable. Territorial jurisdiction lay with the Madras court because the penalty was required to be paid at Madras and the alleged omission occurred where payment should have been made but was not made. The challenge to the prosecutions therefore failed on both prematurity and jurisdiction, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103514