<?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>2017 (10) TMI 1129 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349974</link>
    <description>A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was held not maintainable against a FEMA show-cause notice and complaint at the pre-adjudication stage. The notice set out specific allegations, the complaint basis, the invoked provisions, and the adjudicatory process under FEMA and the applicable rules, so it was not a final determination or an action without jurisdiction. The availability of the statutory mechanism for adjudication, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal weighed against judicial interference. Allegations of mala fides, predetermination, and a background dispute, including arbitration, were insufficient to halt the statutory enquiry where an effective remedy existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2017 08:17:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1129 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349974</link>
      <description>A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was held not maintainable against a FEMA show-cause notice and complaint at the pre-adjudication stage. The notice set out specific allegations, the complaint basis, the invoked provisions, and the adjudicatory process under FEMA and the applicable rules, so it was not a final determination or an action without jurisdiction. The availability of the statutory mechanism for adjudication, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal weighed against judicial interference. Allegations of mala fides, predetermination, and a background dispute, including arbitration, were insufficient to halt the statutory enquiry where an effective remedy existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>