TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 05.07.2019. The erstwhile defendant no. 2 is the branch of defendant no. 1 in Defence Colony, New Delhi wherein the plaintiffs opened their bank accounts with the defendant bank. Factual Background 3. The case as set out by the plaintiffs in a nutshell is that that the plaintiffs opened a Savings Bank Account with the defendant bank under the Non-Resident External Account ('NRE Account') bearing no. 6523 in March of 1990 at the Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. The plaintiffs opened the same after completing of all the necessary formalities including submission of the Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card. 4. The plaintiffs deposited Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four Crore Rupees) from their Moscow office account on 28th March 1990 in the said NRE Account. The account was originally opened by plaintiff no. 2 as a Non-Resident Indian, however since she subsequently changed her residential status, she is said to have ceased to be a joint signatory in the said NRE Account. 5. It is stated that in the absence of plaintiff No. 1 from Delhi, plaintiff no. 2 on 23.04.1990 received a note from the then Branch Manager of defendant no. 2 requesting a blank cheque (only bearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no. 2 calling upon the defendants for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to the account of the Plaintiffs. 13. Since the amounts were not refunded, the present suit was filed. 14. The defendant bank in their written statement have denied the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that the suit is barred by limitation. It is further stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed a claim petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bearing Original Petition No. 150 of 1992 on the same cause of action which was dismissed on 19.03.1993. There are contradictory pleas raised in the present plaint. 15. The defendant bank state that the change of residential status of the plaintiff no. 2 was never conveyed to them. They deny that the then Branch Manager of defendant no. 2 requested blank cheques from the plaintiff no. 2, rather it is alleged that that the plaintiff no. 2 issued a cheque bearing no. 432283 dated 23.04.1990 for an amount of Rs. 2 crore on 'yourself' with instructions on the back on the cheque to the defendant bank to "please issue a telegraphic transfer on your Hyderabad Branch (Bank St.) favoring Asian Wire Ropes Ltd." Simultaneously....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as illegal, improper or without instructions? If so, to what effect? vi. Whether, the transfer of Rs. 2 crores is hit by the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act? If so, to what extent? vii. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? ix. Relief. Evidence led by the parties 19. The plaintiffs examined the following witnesses: a. PW1: Shri Mohan Murti Shandilya (Plaintiff no. 1) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, i.e. Ex. PW1/1, and was cross-examined. b. PW2-Mrs. Renu Murti Shandilya tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit, i.e. Ex. PW2/1. Since she executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of her husband, PW1 tendered his affidavit on her behalf, i.e. EXH PW 2/A. PW2 did not enter the witness box for being cross-examined. 20. The defendant bank examined the following witnesses: i. DW1: Sh. Rajeev Shetty, (then Branch Manager of the defendant bank) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon the following documents: a. Exhibit PW1/D5: The Original letter dated 14.10.198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of FDR and transfer in the name of M/s. Gambro Nexim (India) Private Ltd. for opening current account bearing no. 1571. r. Exhibit PW1/D7: Original Specimen Signature Card signed by the Plaintiff No. 1. s. Exhibit PW1/D10: Original Account Opening Form on behalf of M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. signed by the Plaintiff No. 1. t. Exhibit PW1/D70: Original letter dated 26.09.1990 by Plaintiff No. 2 u. Exhibit PW 1/D62: Extracts of the minutes of meeting dated 18.02.1991. v. Exhibit PW 1/D1: Petition filed by the Plaintiff No. 1 in NCDRC. w. Exhibit PW1/D49, Exhibit PW 1/D50; Exhibit PW 1/D51; Exhibit PW 1/D52; Exhibit PW1/D53; Exhibit PW 1/D54; Exhibit PW 1/D55; Exhibit PW 1/D 58; Exhibit PW 1/D 59; Exhibit PW 1/D60: Original Cheques from three account numbers. x. Exhibit PW1/D64: letter dated 20.02.1992, 27.04.1992 and dated 13.07.1992 sent by DW1. ii. DW2: Shri Achyuth Kunjathaya, (then Assistant Branch Manager of the defendant bank) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied on the same documents as DW1. iii. DW3: Mr. Sreedhar Rai, Chief Manager, Hyderabad Branch tendered his evidence by way of affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt Fees.- Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance." 27. Under section 149 of CPC, the courts have been granted the discretion to permit receiving the deficit court fee at any stage, even in the absence of an application praying for the same, subject to the said discretion being exercised equitably. 28. The plaintiff has cured the defect of deficit court fee within 30 days of the objections. A minor delay in payment of balance court fee cannot act as an impediment in entertaining the suit filed by the plaintiff. 29. Hence, the present suit is held maintainable and within the period of limitation. Issue No. III: When did plaintiff No. 2 change her status from non-resident Indian to resident Indian and whether an intimation thereof was given to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f No. 2 from a non-residential Indian to a residential Indian. Is it correct? Ans.: As per my memory I was to submit a reply to the Hon'ble Court regarding production of any document. I do not remembering there is any order of the Court directing me to bring today any document to be produced during these proceedings. Vol. The original document is suppose to be in the safe custody of defendant Bank because the same was taken from my wife by Mr. Rajiv Shetty, the then Chief Manager/Sr. Manager of defendant Bank, by insisting that she has to submit an Affidavit stating that she has changed her status from NRI to Resident Indian in order to purchase Real Estate in India. Ques. 10: I suggest to your that at the time which you allege that Mr. Shetty or defendant took the document from plaintiff No. 2 you were personally not present. Ans.: I do not remember. Ques. 11: I suggest to you that at the time when you allege that the Bank retained the aforesaid document you were personally not present? Ans.: I do not remember. Ques. 12: Are you carrying the copy of Affidavit of plaintiff No. 2. That you claimed you delivered to the Bank? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../D58, therefore proves that as on 23.04.1990 there was no change in status of plaintiff No. 2 and she had not ceased to be an NRI or joint signatory of the NRE account No.6523. 34. It is stated that the FDR (Ex.PW1/D69) also proves that the allegation of unauthorized transfer is completely frivolous as the plaintiff would not have made fresh deposit of Rs. 1 Crore with the Defence Colony if there was any wrong doing on the part of the bank or its manager. 35. There is no evidence on record to prove that on 17.04.1990, the plaintiff No. 2 ceased to be an NRI. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant bank was duly informed by the plaintiff no. 2.The NRE Account Opening Form, i.e. PW1/D44, clearly casts an obligation upon the plaintiffs the duty to inform the defendant bank a change in their residential status. The operative portion of PW1/D44 reads as under:- "A set of specimen signatures duly authenticated by a Bank Indian Embassy/Notary public /person known to your bank is furnished below for your records. I/We hereby undertake to intimate to you about my/our return to India on coming back to India for permanent residence." 36. Even if it is assum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear". But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged." 40. To my mind, both par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out instructions or authority from the plaintiff on the frivolous plea of liabilities owing by M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd., to the bank. .... 13. That the plaintiffs submit that by imposing liabilities of the above said two companies on the plaintiff No. 1 and thereafter surreptitiously and unscrupulously adjusting/transferring the amount of Rupees Two Crores from the NRE Account which otherwise could not have been transferred and adjusted against the existing liabilities of the two Companies without prior permission/instructions of the Reserve Bank of India or proper written instructions from the plaintiff is violative of the provisions of FERA Act, 1974 and tantamount to providing wilful deficiency services to the Plaintiff. The defendant Bank is further guilty of non compliance with the mandatory provisions of Banking Rules and Practice and the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India and have failed to adhere to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The defendant bank is also, therefore, guilty of not providing honest and clean services to its customers and is bound to refund the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- together with interest and other c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely prove that there was on record of the bank only one Specimen Signature Card of my wife carrying signature as "R. Shandilya". Even a letter from Reserve Bank of India supports this fact, namely that there cannot be more than one Specimen Signature Card of one person/holder of an account at any given time. And also that a cheque bearing signature different than the signature registered on the Specimen Signature Card of that account from which the said cheque is issued shall not be encashed." 44. PW1 in this regard has also deposed as under:- 12.08.2005 "Que.: The witness how been confronted with a document by the defendant and at point 'A' has been asked to identify the signature of the person on it. Ans.: The document is also not on record of the case file and is irrelevant, rather misleading since it relates to an account which is different man the one which the suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff's against the defendant's. Que.: The defendant counsel has reiterated the question. Ans.: It is irrelevant and misleading, in as much as the defendant's have fabricated the specimen signature cards of my....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asked by Mr Rajiv Shetty to sign on the face as well as on the reverse of the said cheque leaf, which she did, but was not asked to write any instructions on the reverse side and she did not write any instructions. The instructions were filled in by the defendant bank without her authorisation and knowledge. In fact, if at all she wanted any transfer she would have gone to the Bank herself. But she did not go to the. defendant bank. 8. That I never filled in any form for telegraphic transfer, which now I learn is mandatory. Therefore, I never authorised the defendant bank to carry out the said illegal transfer. Thus, the defendant bank is clearly guilty of having caused criminal breach of trust and fraud on an unsuspecting house wife in the absence of her husband." 46. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on the RTI reply dated 13.08.1999 wherein the RBI has categorically stated that the funds can be transferred from an NRE account only when signature on the cheque tally with the signature received in the Specimen Signature Card. Further, RBI also stated that there cannot be more than one Specimen Signature card of a NRE Account at one point of time. The queries dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instruction to the defendant bank or any person in the telex to go to the house of the plaintiffs and ask plaintiff no. 2 for a cheque leaf of Rs 2 Crores from Savings Bank NRE 6523 account. 49. Plaintiff No. 1 also disputes the letter of Gambro Nexim (India) Medical Ltd (EX. PW1/D26) on the grounds that (i) no mention of the NRE Account no 6523, (ii) letter addressed to Bangalore Branch and not Defence Colony Branch, (iii) The letter could not have reached Delhi and Bangalore on the same day and (iv) there were no instructions in the letter to Mr. Shetty to go to the plaintiff's house to obtain a cheque leaf of Rs. 2 Crore from plaintiff No. 2. 50. The defendant bank submits that on 28.03.1990 the Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 approached the Defendant No. 2 with a request to open two accounts, one being a Non-Resident External (NRE) Savings Bank Account in their joint names and another ordinary Savings Bank Account in the individual name of the Plaintiff No. 2.The Plaintiff No. 1 signed the NRE Account Opening form, i.e. PW1/D44, under the signatures "Mohan Murti" i.e. PW1/D36and the Plaintiff No. 2 signed the same as "R. Shandilya,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2282 amounting to Rs. 95 lakhs from the joint NRE Account No. 6523 signing thereon in DW1's presence as "R. Murti" (EX.PW1/D57). In these circumstances, it is evident that plaintiff no. 2 would use "R. Murti" for issuance of cheques for the NRE Account No. 6523. It is reproduced as under:- 53. The defendant bank has also referred to a cheque dated 07.05.1990 bearing no. 432284 from NRE account no. 6523 for an amount of Rs. 1 crore wherein the plaintiff no. 2 has signed as "R. Murti" for the purpose of opening a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore with the Defence Colony branch of the defendant bank. The defendant bank submits that allegation of unauthorized transfer is completely frivolous as the plaintiff would not have made fresh deposit of Rs. l Crore with the Defence Colony branch if there was any wrongdoing on the part of the bank or its manager. 54. The defendant bank submits that the allegation levelled by the Plaintiffs, stating that the official of the defendant bank had fraudulently got a blank cheque issued from the Plaintiff No. 2 is baseless, sham and bogus. The Plaintiff No. 2 had issued cheque amounting to Rs. 2 Crores so as to facilitate the takeover of the Companies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Delhi in connection with his business in April 1990. During his absence the defendant No. 2 on 23rd April 1990 sent a note to the plaintiff No. 2 requesting her to send a blank cheque (only bearing the signature of the plaintiff No. 2). On his return to Delhi, the plaintiff no. 1 was shocked and surprised to learn from an entry in the pass-book relating to the NRE account that the defendants had arbitrarily and without any instructions from the plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs. 2 Crore to their Hyderabad branch. ii. In paragraph 3(d) it is stated that Rs. 2 Crore was unauthorizedly transferred and adjusted by the bank against the bogus liability of bills of Asian Wire Ropes Ltd., with a view to avoid criminal prosecution of the ex-Chairman and other officials of the bank. In paragraph 6 it is stated that Rs. 2 Crore was transferred to adjust against some liabilities of M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. of which the plaintiffs were neither shareholders nor Directors or guarantors. iii. In para 3(h) it is stated that when the amount of Rs. 2 Crore was not refunded, by the bank, the complainant was forced to take the shares in aforesaid companies and he started looking af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaint filed before NCRDC, i.e.Ex. PW1/D1, clearly shows that contrary to the averments made by the plaintiffs in the present case, there was some prior involvement of the plaintiffs in M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. and its subsidiary Asian Steel Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs have intentionally concealed the said facts before this court and have attempted to avoid from placing the same on record. It is a settled principle in law that a litigant cannot suppress material facts and raise inconsistent stands before different forums. The consumer complaint filed before NCRDC is exhibited as EX. PW1/D1 and supported by affidavits by both the plaintiffs. Contrary to what has been implied by the plaintiffs in the present suit, the plaintiffs were not total strangers to the affairs of M/s Asian Wire Ropes Ltd.. 59. The plaintiffs before the learned NCDRC have admitted that on suggestion and invitation by the then chairman of the defendant bank, the plaintiffs were participating in revival of M/s Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. and its subsidiary Asian Steel Pvt. Ltd.. The plaintiffs have even opened a bank account in the name of M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd (Ex. PW1/D10) with the defendant bank, showing acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken by surprise and new facts cannot be brought through evidence which have not been stated by the defendant in the written statement. The law provides a procedure for amendment of the pleadings and if there are any new facts which the party wanted to bring on record, the party can amend pleadings, but without amendment of pleadings, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings." 63. Even in the complaint filed before the NCDRC, the plea with respect to the signature of the plaintiff no. 2 being different on the cheque in question from that of the Specimen Signature Card and Account Opening form in NRE Account no. 6523 is amiss. In view of these facts, it appears that the said submission/ground appears to be an after-thought on the part of the plaintiffs and cannot be entertained. 64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacchaj Nahar v Nilima Mandal and Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491 has held that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. It reads as under:- "12. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the bank in due course. Yet, the allegation of misuse and misappropriation of amount has been made only in respect of cheque in question, i.e. Ex. PW-1/D31. 66. When the plaintiffs have themselves admitted that plaintiff no. 2 would mistakenly sign as "R. Murti," the allegation with respect to forgery no longer stands. Furthermore, the date of the so called alleged illegal transaction is 23.04.1900, even thereafter the plaintiff no. 2 on 07.05.1990 issued another cheque, i.e. (EX.PW1/D58), for an amount of Rs. 1 crore for the purpose of opening a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore (EX. PW1/D69) with the same Defence Colony branch of the defendant bank signing as "R. Murti". This conduct of the plaintiffs alongwith the opening of a bank account in the name of the M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. (Ex. PW1/D10) also raises doubts with respect to the case put forth by the plaintiffs. 67. Additionally, the plaintiffs have heavily relied upon the RTI reply by the Reserve Bank of India to allege that there cannot be more than one Specimen Signature card of any Account at one point of time. However, once again the said averment has only been alleged at the stage of filing of Evidence. Even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... defendant bank, however what is alleged is that no instructions were written on the reverse side of the same. The onus of proving that the cheque was a blank cheque and the instructions were written by the DW1 was on plaintiffs. In discharge of the onus, the plaintiff no. 2 in her Evidence by way of affidavit (Exh. PW2/A) has stated as under:- "10. That it is specifically stated that the plaintiff No. 2 was asked by Mr Rajiv Shetty to sign on the face as well as on the reverse of the said cheque leaf, which she did, but was not asked to write any instructions on the reverse side and that she did not write any instructions. The instructions were filled in by the defendant bank without plaintiffs' authorisation and knowledge. In fact, if at all the plaintiffs wanted any transfer of money they would have gone to the Bank themselves. But they did not go to the defendant bank." 71. The same is denied by the defendant bank in the written statement and their Evidence by way of Affidavit. The written statement read as under:- "4. Contents of para 4 as stated are wrong and are denied. It is denied for want of knowledge that the plaintiff No. 1, had gone abroad in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso not sought the cheque to be sent for forensic analysis for evaluation to prove their case, as set out in the plaint. 73. In the cross examination of the plaintiffs, the defendant bank put the following suggestions. It reads as under:- "PW1 on 25.10.2005 Ques. 20: I suggest that the signatures encircled in Red on Ex.PW1/D-31 are those of plaintiff No. 2. Ans.: Denied. Vol. The Bank had fraudulently obtained this cheque from my wife to unauthorisedly transfer the said sum of Rs. 2 crores from my NRE account 6523. Ques. 21: Would you please look at the figures 23.4.90 at point encircled A; and identify the another thereof? Ans.: I am sorry I cannot. Ques. 22: Would you please identify the signatures at point encircled 'B' and identify whose they are? Ans.: As already stated, the said cheque has been fraudulently obtained from my wife by misrepresentation in order to unauthorisedly transfer the amount of Rs. 2 crores from my NRE Account 6523, As stated in my evidence Para 4,5 & 7, the signatures of my wife were obtained fraudulently. Ques. 23: The signatures referred it by you in answer above are tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25.03.2011 "Q. On the basis of records, can you say as to who brought this cheque Ex. PW1/D-31 to the bank? Ans. Some representative of plaintiff no. 2 brought this cheque to the bank. Q. So as you said that this is a bearer cheque. Why did you transfer this amount to the third party instead of encashing to the person bringing the cheque? (Question is objected to by ld. counsel by the defendant as misleading) Ans. The cheque in question was payable to yourself with the mandate on the back of the cheque duly authorized by the drawer of the cheque as what should be done with ... money. Q. Is it correct that when a cheque is carrying corrections of "yourself" then, the bank can only issue pay order or demand draft? Ans. It is incorrect. .... Q. Please see the cheques Ex. PW1/D-31 and Ex. PW1/D56. Where account number NRE 6523 is mentioned, Was this put by the Bank. Ans. Yes. Q. Was this account number put on the said cheques in the presence of plaintiffs? Ans. It might have been. ... Q. It is put to you that the portion at mark on the reverse of Ex.PW1/D-31 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the amounts and (b) no instructions were written on the reverse side of the cheque in question; is the subsequent conduct of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have continued their business relationship with the defendant bank subsequent to the alleged fraud. The plaintiffs have opened a bank account in the name of M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd (Ex. PW1/D10) showing active involvement of the plaintiffs with M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Ltd. 77. In addition, the plaintiffs have also issued another cheque dated 07.05.1990 bearing no. 432284 from NRE account no. 6523 for an amount of Rs. 1 crore wherein the plaintiff no. 2 has signed with "R. Murti" for the purpose of opening a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore with the Defence Colony branch of the defendant bank. 78. It is incomprehensible that the plaintiffs, who are business persons, would wish to continue their relationship with the defendant bank especially since they were alleging fraud of Rs. 2 crore by the defendant bank against the plaintiffs. 79. I am also of the view that there is some merit in the contentions of the plaintiffs that, (i) the defendant bank could not have two Specimen Signature Cards for NRE Account 6523 one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person" 83. The party which comes to the court and seeks the courts adjudication on issues in its favour has to discharge the onus of proof. 84. In view of the evidence discussed, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the instructions written on the reverse side of the cheque were not given by the plaintiff no. 2 but written by the defendant bank. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the act of encashing the cheque in question, i.e. Ex. PW1/D31, is improper especially since the defendant bank has sufficiently proved that the plaintiff no. 2 would continually sign cheques both signed as "R. Murti" and "R. Shandilya" in the NRE Account no. 6523. 85. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs have not been able to discharge the onus of proof with regard to issues II, IV and V. 86. In this view, the issues no. II, IV and V are decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. VI Whether, the transfer of Rs. 2 crores is hit by the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act? If so, to what extent? 87. The plaintiff submits that since the account was an NRE account, no amount coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be complied with the said person shall, within a period of thirty days from the date on which he comes to know that such foreign exchange cannot be so used or the conditions cannot be complied with, sell the foreign exchange to an authorised dealer or to a moneychanger. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that where a person acquires foreign exchange for sending or bringing into India any goods but sends or brings no such goods or does not send or bring goods of a value representing the foreign exchange acquired, within a reasonable time or sends or brings any goods of a kind, quality or quantity different from that specified by him at the time of acquisition of the foreign exchange, such person shall unless the contrary is proved, be presumed not to have been able to use the foreign exchange for the purpose for which he acquired it or, as the case may be, to have used the foreign exchange so acquired otherwise than for the purposes for which it was acquired. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a person from buying from any post office in accordance with any law or rules made thereunder for the time being in force, any f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant that the subject-matter of the legislation viz. foreign exchange, has features and problems peculiarly its own, and that it forms a class in itself. A law which prescribes a special procedure for investigation of breaches of foreign exchange regulations will therefore be not hit by Article 14 as it is based on a classification which has a just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The vires of Section 23 (1) (a) is accordingly not open to attack on the ground that it is governed by a procedure different from that prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. That indeed is not controverted by the appellant. That being so, does it make any difference in the legal position that Section 23-D provides for transfer by the Director of Enforcement of cases which he can try, to the court? We have not here, as in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali [(1952) 1 SCC 1 :(1952) SCR 284] a law, which confers on an officer an absolute discretion to send a case for trial either to a court or to a Magistrate, empowered to try cases under a special procedure. Section 23-D confers authority on the very officer who has power to try and dispose of a case to send it on for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ठसं. लिखें à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ रिज़रà¥à¤µ बैंक विदेशी मà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¤¾ नियंतà¥à¤°à¤£ विà¤à¤¾à¤— केनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ केनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ à¤à¤µà¤¨ मà¥à¤‚बई 400 001. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA पोसà¥à¤Ÿ बॉकà¥à¤¸ सं. Post Box No.: : 399 { 1055 फैकà¥à¤¸ सं. : 022-2665330 FAX NO. 022-2654121 13 12th 199 August 1999 199 (91725) (SAKA) Please quote Ref. in reply EXCHANGE CONTROL DEPARTMENT CENTRAL OFFICE CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING MUMBAI 400 001. संदरà¥à¤ सं. ईसी. Ref. No. EC CO.NRFAD. GO/22.13.18/99-2000 Shri Mohan Shandilya D-37,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A sunt. I/We intend/do not into ail of no Relevant nomination form No. DA-1 is enclosed. In the event of any chymy/our residential stor any change in the constration of the firm, I/We undertake the Bank immediately as require 1 by the relevant control regulations. I/We have current/Sb. t with I/We do not have any with any In case of joint account th amount is pa or survivor/either or: Baniny Bank. In case of HUF I am : Kart of the HUF, Form No. 1-932is enclosed. Residence 47. Ring Rod wie Affix passport size photo in case of illiterate persons Document 4 The is a propie For Partnership Act: Ours is a partnership the partner's } lity er 1-2 is enclosed. The copy of the partnership deed is enclosed/we do not have partnership dead. For Club/Society/Association Account: We have resolved to eperat our SB/Current Ac with you vide copy of Resolution dated (enclosed). The co closed. For Trust Accou Ours is a trust and les/constituity is nclosed the of the Trust D. J. For Private/Public Limited Companies: Ours is a ................Limited Company and we enclose the following:- i) ....