TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, 1950. 2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgment and the same read thus: "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 the loan taken by the Petitioner. On 30.03.1998, Petitioner signed a fresh set of documents including Agreement to Sell ('ATS') and Power of Attorneys ('POAs') in respect of 2nd floor of the Jor Bagh property. On 30.04.1998, Petitioner returned a sum of Rs.45 lakhs as part repayment of the loans taken and since an amount of Rs.15 lakh was outstanding, Respondent No. 2 withheld the original ATS, GPAs and SPAs and promised to return the documents upon repayment of the pending loan amount. 5. It is stated in the petition that on 23.06.1998,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Single Judge relying upon the findings and the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in CS (OS) 1336/1998 and CS (OS) 2273/2000 as also by the learned Division Bench in RFA (OS) 13/2025 and 14/2025, has dismissed the writ petition deeming that the issues sought to be raised by the appellant had duly been considered and decided in the suit proceedings. 4. Learned senior counsel submits that the violation of a statutory enactment or the rules framed thereunder can be agitated by a party before a constitutional Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He states that there is neither any bar nor any prohibition which would preclude redressal by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He further states that merely because an issue framed in a civil suit relating to the similar subject has been decided against a party, it does not, ipso facto, preclude or prohibit the said party from questioning the legality of the consequence emanating out of the said infraction or violation of a particular provision of an enactment or a statute. 5. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025, particularly paras 27 and 28, which have also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in para 14 of the impugned judgment. Para 14 of the impugned judgment reads thus: "14. By common judgment dated 02.12.2024, CS (OS) No. 1336/1998 was dismissed, while CS (OS) No. 2273/2000 was decreed inter alia directing specific performance of ATS dated 31.03.1998. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appeals filed by the Petitioner have been dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.2025. Significantly, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, Division Bench has taken note of the additional issue and the contentions of the respective parties with respect to Section 31 of FERA as also RBI Notification. In paragraph 14(vi), Division Bench has captured the contention 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, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry provisions under FERA and the procedural mandates stipulated by the RBI Notification." 10. Contrary to the submissions addressed by learned senior counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the learned Division Bench has examined the additional issue in detail and has rendered its findings thereon clearly pointing out to the fact that the transaction is fully compliant with the statutory provision in the FERA, and the procedural mandate stipulated by the RBI notification. In light of the clear findings recorded by an Appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, we are unable to appreciate as to on what grounds a writ Court can examine the same issue again. Moreover, in case the appellant was not satisfied with the findings recorded either by the learned Single Judge in the Original Suit or the observations of the Appellate Court, nothing precluded him from challenging the same in accordance with law. 11. At this juncture, we also would find it appropriate to take note of the observations rendered by learned Single Judge in para 15 of the impugned judgment, which too are of relevance. The same reads thus: "15. From the aforesaid observati....