https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298353 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined where proceedings under FEMA had progressed to an adjudication order during the pendency of the appeals, because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 19(1) remained available, including scope for dispensing with pre-deposit in appropriate cases. The Court treated the existence of that remedy, together with the appellants' opportunity to seek interim relief or appear before the adjudicating authority, as sufficient reason not to entertain the challenge. It emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and left the statutory remedies open without examining the merits of the dispute. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:38:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298353 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined where proceedings under FEMA had progressed to an adjudication order during the pendency of the appeals, because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 19(1) remained available, including scope for dispensing with pre-deposit in appropriate cases. The Court treated the existence of that remedy, together with the appellants' opportunity to seek interim relief or appear before the adjudicating authority, as sufficient reason not to entertain the challenge. It emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and left the statutory remedies open without examining the merits of the dispute. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298353