https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784245 A writ petition under Article 226 could not be used to reopen a foreign exchange compliance issue that had already been framed in the civil suit, decided on merits, and examined again in appeal. The courts had found that the transaction fell within the RBI's general permission and complied with the FERA framework, giving the issue finality. The same controversy was therefore barred from fresh challenge by constructive res judicata and the principle of finality of adjudication. A party's failure to effectively contest the issue in the proper forum did not create a later right to re-agitate it in writ proceedings. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784245 A writ petition under Article 226 could not be used to reopen a foreign exchange compliance issue that had already been framed in the civil suit, decided on merits, and examined again in appeal. The courts had found that the transaction fell within the RBI's general permission and complied with the FERA framework, giving the issue finality. The same controversy was therefore barred from fresh challenge by constructive res judicata and the principle of finality of adjudication. A party's failure to effectively contest the issue in the proper forum did not create a later right to re-agitate it in writ proceedings. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784245