<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1199 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432082</link>
    <description>A foreign decree may be refused enforcement in India where the procedure adopted abroad denies a real opportunity to defend, especially when substantial triable issues were raised and leave to defend was not granted. The Court also treated the RBI&#039;s conditional permission for the guarantee as controlling, holding that later circulars could not override those conditions and that enforcement could not disregard the foreign exchange restrictions attached to the transaction. Contemporaneous corporate records, including balance sheets and board minutes signed by the respondent&#039;s nominee, were viewed as material evidence supporting the defence that no amount was payable. On these grounds, enforcement was rejected and the objections succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1199 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432082</link>
      <description>A foreign decree may be refused enforcement in India where the procedure adopted abroad denies a real opportunity to defend, especially when substantial triable issues were raised and leave to defend was not granted. The Court also treated the RBI&#039;s conditional permission for the guarantee as controlling, holding that later circulars could not override those conditions and that enforcement could not disregard the foreign exchange restrictions attached to the transaction. Contemporaneous corporate records, including balance sheets and board minutes signed by the respondent&#039;s nominee, were viewed as material evidence supporting the defence that no amount was payable. On these grounds, enforcement was rejected and the objections succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>