Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court acknowledged the importance of balancing freedom of press and expression with the right to privacy, particularly for public figures like Mahua Moitra, the petitioner, a former elected Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar, West Bengal, affiliated with the All-India Trinamool Congress Party (AITC).
It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
“Merely because no provision in the Act makes the transaction void or says that no title in the property passes to the purchaser in case there is contravention of the provisions of Section 31, will be of no avail. That does not validate the transfer referred to in Section 31, which is not backed by “previous” permission of the RBI.”
Bhumesh Verma, Managing Partner, Corp Comm Legal and Namrata Singhal, Third year BBA LLB student, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
Cite as: (2020) PL (CL) December 69
Supreme Court: On the question of liability to be proceeded with for offence under Section 68 of FERA, 1973, the bench of
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Sapre and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that the appellate forum for deciding the appeals arising
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a Criminal Revision Petition
Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the order of the Bombay High Court which had dislodged the order of discharge passed