<?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>2009 (4) TMI 442 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112456</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the court will not weigh evidence as at trial; a prima facie case founded on a strong suspicion from the record is sufficient. On the materials before the Magistrate, including the complaint, pre-charge evidence, bank records and the communication attributed to the account holder, there was adequate basis to infer that the petitioner had received funds linked to foreign exchange transactions without prior Reserve Bank of India permission. The defence plea required evidentiary appreciation and could be tested at trial, so revision interference was unwarranted and the order framing charge stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 442 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112456</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the court will not weigh evidence as at trial; a prima facie case founded on a strong suspicion from the record is sufficient. On the materials before the Magistrate, including the complaint, pre-charge evidence, bank records and the communication attributed to the account holder, there was adequate basis to infer that the petitioner had received funds linked to foreign exchange transactions without prior Reserve Bank of India permission. The defence plea required evidentiary appreciation and could be tested at trial, so revision interference was unwarranted and the order framing charge stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>