https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775578 The HC held that the agreement for sale did not constitute a transfer of property without prior RBI permission and thus did not violate FERA, 1973. Section 47 implies that prohibited acts require prior approval, but this does not render the agreement invalid. The agreement lacked any clause mandating RBI permission under Section 31 and complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of such an agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78 of FERA, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain suits for enforcement. The court concluded the agreement was neither illegal nor void under FERA, and no jurisdictional bar existed to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing alternative remedies or enforcing the agreement. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 08:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775578 The HC held that the agreement for sale did not constitute a transfer of property without prior RBI permission and thus did not violate FERA, 1973. Section 47 implies that prohibited acts require prior approval, but this does not render the agreement invalid. The agreement lacked any clause mandating RBI permission under Section 31 and complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of such an agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78 of FERA, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain suits for enforcement. The court concluded the agreement was neither illegal nor void under FERA, and no jurisdictional bar existed to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing alternative remedies or enforcing the agreement. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775578