https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125940 The Delhi HC held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies where unexplained revival of long-pending foreign exchange proceedings raised an arbitrariness concern. The respondents were required to explain the prolonged inactivity, and the delay was treated as a material infirmity. The Court also held that a quasi-criminal show cause notice must contain specific particulars enabling an effective reply, and that abetment cannot be alleged on negligence alone because it requires intentional aid, instigation, conspiracy, or knowing participation. The impugned notices and all proceedings founded on them were quashed. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125940 The Delhi HC held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies where unexplained revival of long-pending foreign exchange proceedings raised an arbitrariness concern. The respondents were required to explain the prolonged inactivity, and the delay was treated as a material infirmity. The Court also held that a quasi-criminal show cause notice must contain specific particulars enabling an effective reply, and that abetment cannot be alleged on negligence alone because it requires intentional aid, instigation, conspiracy, or knowing participation. The impugned notices and all proceedings founded on them were quashed. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125940