https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783226 A writ petition cannot reopen a question conclusively decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties on the same factual and legal foundation. The Court noted that the legality of the RBI's acceptance of Form IPI-7, the alleged FERA violation, and the applicability of Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had already been examined in connected appeals, where the transaction was held to fall within the general permission framework and to have been duly accepted by RBI. On that basis, the preliminary objection to maintainability was upheld and the writ petition was held not maintainable. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783226 A writ petition cannot reopen a question conclusively decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties on the same factual and legal foundation. The Court noted that the legality of the RBI's acceptance of Form IPI-7, the alleged FERA violation, and the applicability of Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had already been examined in connected appeals, where the transaction was held to fall within the general permission framework and to have been duly accepted by RBI. On that basis, the preliminary objection to maintainability was upheld and the writ petition was held not maintainable. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783226