<?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 (11) TMI 507 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113512</link>
    <description>A director may be held liable for contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1958 only if he was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence. Here, the show-cause notice alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the company&#039;s conduct of business, and the company&#039;s initial reply identified him as a director without asserting that he was merely a part-time or non-executive director. That contrary plea appeared only later and was not shown to have been before the adjudicating authority or appellate tribunal. On the record considered by those authorities, the later denial was treated as an afterthought, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 507 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113512</link>
      <description>A director may be held liable for contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1958 only if he was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence. Here, the show-cause notice alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the company&#039;s conduct of business, and the company&#039;s initial reply identified him as a director without asserting that he was merely a part-time or non-executive director. That contrary plea appeared only later and was not shown to have been before the adjudicating authority or appellate tribunal. On the record considered by those authorities, the later denial was treated as an afterthought, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>