https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152894 A civil suit challenging a foreign exchange derivative was not barred merely because the bank could pursue recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and Section 41(b) prevented an injunction restraining such proceedings. The derivative was held not to be a wagering contract because it was structured as a hedging arrangement, involved real exposure management, and lacked any common intention to bet. It was also not shown to be illegal, ultra vires, or opposed to public policy, as the regulatory framework permitted such foreign exchange derivatives on declared hedging exposure. The suit was therefore maintainable, but injunctive relief was refused and the substantive challenge to the contract failed. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152894 A civil suit challenging a foreign exchange derivative was not barred merely because the bank could pursue recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and Section 41(b) prevented an injunction restraining such proceedings. The derivative was held not to be a wagering contract because it was structured as a hedging arrangement, involved real exposure management, and lacked any common intention to bet. It was also not shown to be illegal, ultra vires, or opposed to public policy, as the regulatory framework permitted such foreign exchange derivatives on declared hedging exposure. The suit was therefore maintainable, but injunctive relief was refused and the substantive challenge to the contract failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152894