TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 14.12.1998 issued by the Respondent No. 1; (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that no reliance be placed on documents that create an interest of Respondent No. 2 in the First Floor of the property at 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, which have been executed without any permission having been sought from Respondent No.1 under the FERA regime; (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for any/all other consequential relief of prayers "(a)" and "(b)" above; and (d) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 4. Case of the Petitioner, as set out in the writ petition is that Respondent No. 2/Shri Kanwar Raj Singh relinquished Indian citizenship and became a US citizen in 1993. Between 1996 to 1998, Petitioner took loans of approximately Rs. 50 to 60 lakhs from Respondent No. 2 and his wife and as security he offered 1st and 2nd floors of property bearing no. 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi ('Jor Bagh property') with an understanding between the parties that the property will not be sold to recover the loan amount and was only to underwrite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e., CS (OS) No. 1336/1998 was dismissed. Petitioner filed two appeals against the judgment and decree being RFA (OS) 13/2025 and RFA (OS) 14/2025, which were pending when this writ petition was filed in July, 2025. 7. In the present writ petition, Petitioner seeks quashing of letter dated 14.12.1998 issued by RBI as also a declaration that no reliance be placed on documents that create an interest of Respondent No. 2 in the 1st floor of the Jor Bagh property, which were executed without any permission from RBI under the FERA regime. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 wilfully acted in breach of statutory mandate by failing to obtain prior permission from RBI within the prescribed 90 days period as required by Notification dated 26.05.1993. Furthermore, he suppressed material facts by omitting to disclose that there was a pending litigation with respect to interest in the 2nd floor of the Jor Bagh property and that he had acquired purported interest in the 1st floor under an ATS and GPAs. GPA dated 30.03.1998 executed in favour of Respondent No.3 purports to transfer interest in an immovable property from a foreign national of Indian origin i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny purported offence under FERA after the said cut-off date. 11. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 also opposes the petition on the ground that the issue of alleged violation of RBI Notification or the FERA regime in the present case stands settled by the judgment of the Division Bench holding that the transactions by Respondent No. 2 are totally compliant and the present writ petition is thus only a futile attempt to reagitate decided issues, which is impermissible in law. In fact, after the decision in the two appeals, this writ petition is clearly barred by constructive res judicata and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Without prejudice, Respondent No. 2 has duly complied with the Notification and money was paid through foreign exchange remitted from abroad through normal banking channel and Non-Resident External Account ('NRE Account'). 12. After hearing the counsels for the respective parties and in light of the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition, the first and foremost question that needs consideration is whether this Court can adjudicate on the legality and validity of letter dated 14.12.1998 issued by RBI, whereby RBI accepted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Petitioner vis-à-vis the FERA regime and paragraph 15 (viii) encapsulates rival contention of Respondent No. 2. After analysing the rival submissions as also Section 31(1) of FERA and concerned RBI Notification, the Division Bench held as follows:- "26. Consequently, we now proceed to consider the issue framed pertaining to the transaction executed by Respondent No. 2 in CS (OS) No. 2273/2000, as raised by the Respondents in the amended plaint. 27. This Court is placing reliance upon the RBI Notification, in relation to Section 31(1) of the FERA which reflects that the intimation to the RBI is required. The RBI Notification is reproduced hereinbelow: "In pursuance of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) and in supersession of As Notification No. FERA 100/92-RB dated 8th January 1992, the Reserve Bank is pleased to grant general permission to foreign citizen of Indian origin, to acquire by way of purchase or inheritance and depose of by way of sale any immovable property, not being agricultural land/farm house/plantation property, situate in India, and to acquire by way of gift and dispos....