<?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>2015 (5) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260033</link>
    <description>Adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was quashed because the proceedings were left pending for an inordinate, unexplained period and the delay caused real prejudice to the noticee&#039;s defence. The Court held that penal proceedings must be pursued with reasonable expedition and that prolonged dormancy, non-service of notice, withholding of relied-upon documents, and failure to address requests for copies and cross-examination violated the right to a fair and expeditious process under Article 21. As the delay was systemic and had impaired the ability to defend, the confiscation action could not stand and the seized amount was ordered to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 06:09:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260033</link>
      <description>Adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was quashed because the proceedings were left pending for an inordinate, unexplained period and the delay caused real prejudice to the noticee&#039;s defence. The Court held that penal proceedings must be pursued with reasonable expedition and that prolonged dormancy, non-service of notice, withholding of relied-upon documents, and failure to address requests for copies and cross-examination violated the right to a fair and expeditious process under Article 21. As the delay was systemic and had impaired the ability to defend, the confiscation action could not stand and the seized amount was ordered to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>