https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756140 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of hearing notices under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. The court held that Rule 4(3) must be read constructively with Rule 4(4), which requires adjudicating authorities to inform parties of contraventions, allegations, and applicable provisions. The court found that fair opportunity is provided when these rules are read together, and Rule 4(3) does not violate natural justice principles. Following the Division Bench precedent in India Cements Limited, the court ruled that judicial review cannot expand procedural requirements beyond what the rules contemplate, and parties must cooperate within existing procedures rather than prolonging proceedings through repeated court challenges. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2024 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756140 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of hearing notices under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. The court held that Rule 4(3) must be read constructively with Rule 4(4), which requires adjudicating authorities to inform parties of contraventions, allegations, and applicable provisions. The court found that fair opportunity is provided when these rules are read together, and Rule 4(3) does not violate natural justice principles. Following the Division Bench precedent in India Cements Limited, the court ruled that judicial review cannot expand procedural requirements beyond what the rules contemplate, and parties must cooperate within existing procedures rather than prolonging proceedings through repeated court challenges. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756140