<?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>2025 (3) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766681</link>
    <description>FERA adjudicatory proceedings are quasi-judicial, not criminal, so the adjudicating authority may determine statutory contraventions and impose penalty but cannot record a criminal finding of guilt. A declaration of guilt carries consequences reserved for competent criminal courts, and the use of that term in the impugned order was therefore impermissible and had to be treated as redacted. The penalty and the remaining adjudicatory findings were upheld as being within jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766681</link>
      <description>FERA adjudicatory proceedings are quasi-judicial, not criminal, so the adjudicating authority may determine statutory contraventions and impose penalty but cannot record a criminal finding of guilt. A declaration of guilt carries consequences reserved for competent criminal courts, and the use of that term in the impugned order was therefore impermissible and had to be treated as redacted. The penalty and the remaining adjudicatory findings were upheld as being within jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>