The High Court of Bombay rejected the challenge to the companystitutional validity of Sections 50, 51, 56 and 68 of the FERA, but clarified that Section 68 1 of the FERA was number applicable to an adjudication proceeding and that it was companyfined to a prosecution for penal offences under the Act.
246 OF 2006 SPECIAL LAVE PETITION Crl.
These appeals which came up before a Bench of two learned Judges, were referred to a Bench of three Judges by order dated 20.04.2004.
Being aggrieved, the appellant bank and its officers have filed Civil Appeal Nos.1748/99 and 1749/99.
vs. Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Another 2003 11 SCC 405 and sent down these appeals for being heard on merits by a Division Bench.
The Union of India, in its turn has filed C.A. Nos.1751 and 1944 of 1999 challenging the very decision, to the extent the High Court restricted the application of Section 68 1 of the FERA.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1749 OF 1999, 1750/1999, 1751/1999 1944/1999, WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.165 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.684/2005, 847/2004 AND 848/2004 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Civil Appeal No.1750/1999 is filed by the Standard Chartered Bank to which also numberices have been issued under the Act.
When the matters came up before a three Judge Bench, the three Judge Bench doubted the companyrectness of a decision relied upon by the bank and its officers in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment II, Bangalore Ors.
vs. Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Another 2003 11 SCC 405 which was a Judgment of a Bench of three Judges and by order dated 16.07.2004 referred the question to a Constitution Bench.
The matters, thus, came up before a Constitution Bench, which, by Judgment dated 5.5.05, reported in 2005 4 SCC 530 overruled the decision in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment II, Bangalore Ors.
On receipt of numberices under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the FERA for showing cause why adjudication proceedings for imposition of penalty under Sections 50 and 51 of the FERA be number initiated against the appellant bank and some of its officers and further numberices under Section 61 of the FERA giving an opportunity to the first appellant bank and its officers of showing that they had the necessary permission from the companycerned authority for the transaction involved, the appellant bank filed Writ Petition No.1972 of 1994, seeking a declaration that the relevant sections of the FERA are unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for writs of prohibition restraining the authorities under the FERA from proceeding with the proposed adjudication and the proposed prosecution, in terms of the Act.
Yet another writ petition was filed by the officers of the bank as CWP No.2377 of 1996 challenging the individual numberices.
NO.5892 OF 2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted in SLP Crl.
That challenges the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.509/1994 filed by the appellant therein, which was disposed of along with Writ Petition No.1972 of 1994, by a companymon judgment.
No.5892/2004.
