https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407319 A plaint in a specific performance suit was not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) because no clear statutory bar appeared on the face of the plaint and its accompanying documents. Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was construed as requiring prior Reserve Bank permission before execution of a registered transfer by a foreign national, not merely before an agreement for sale. The Court also noted that Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 prevented judicial notice of the alleged contravention long after repeal. The suit was therefore allowed to proceed on merits. en-us Tue, 04 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 May 2021 08:42:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407319 A plaint in a specific performance suit was not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) because no clear statutory bar appeared on the face of the plaint and its accompanying documents. Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was construed as requiring prior Reserve Bank permission before execution of a registered transfer by a foreign national, not merely before an agreement for sale. The Court also noted that Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 prevented judicial notice of the alleged contravention long after repeal. The suit was therefore allowed to proceed on merits. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 04 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407319