Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: appellate tribunal for foreign exchange new delhi Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.021 seconds)

Sep 16 1999 (TRI)

Chhabra Handicrafts Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Decided on : Sep-16-1999

..... shall be sleeping partners only. unless there is an express agreement, every partner is authorised to take part in the business of the partnership firm under section 19 of the indian partnership act, 1932. therefore, the impugned order is liable to be sustained. 7. it is on record that the appellant-firm has sent few ..... stating that they are sleeping partners and the appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992 is managing partner and (3) letter intimating registration of the partnership firm addressed to the name of the appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992. thus, a stand has been taken that the appellant harkirat singh ..... had been working as managing partner and was looking after day-to-day business and affairs of the partnership firm whereas other appellants were merely sleeping partners. also, there is evidence available on record to this effect that the total correspondence on behalf of ..... certificate of foreign inward remittance dated 1-9-1989 certifying that us $ 1,500 was received by the bank on account of partnership firm but the same was not accepted by the adjudicating authority due to non-application of mind, and (4) that the appellant chhabra handicrafts is a ..... buyer, (2) that the appellant sent various fax message and managing partner (appellant in appeal no. 245 of 1992) met the buyer personally on his indian visit to impress upon him the immediacy of remitting the export proceeds, (3) that the appellants banker, i.e., bank of india, moradabad, gave a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1999 (TRI)

Syed Shabbir Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Decided on : Oct-01-1999

..... the same in any bank. he has not tendered any evidence of the amount having been deposited and withdrawn from the bank. he was running a partnership business of transport and later on became the sole owner of the vehicle as evidenced by the papers furnished by him. in his statement, he has ..... to lay hands on substantial indian currency in respect of which, prima facie, the explanation given by the appellant is not believable. in the circumstances i do not consider it appropriate to ..... which a penalty of rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973 ( ??the act). the amount of penalty has already been recovered by the department from out of the seized amount of rs. 2,80,000. this order disposes ..... aside. normally, the seized amount should be returned to the appellant as the same has not been found to be involved in any contravention of the act and there is no evidence that the said amount belongs to another person. however, it is not disputed that the law enforcement agencies have been able ..... a person, even if not duly accounted for, by itself cannot be the basis for holding the person guilty of any contravention under the act, unless that amount is attributed to any contravention thereof by any independent evidence to prove that contravention. even if it is established that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //