Case Brief
Petitioner: Shanti Prasad Jain
Defendant: Director of Enforcement
19 April 1962
1962 AIR 1764, 1963 SCR (2) 297
Statutes Referred:
The Constitution of India
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Cases Referred:
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali 1952 SCR 284
Facts of the Case:
The appellate has raised the appeal regarding the special leave of the provisions of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1947 as by opening the current accounts with the chartered bank of India, Australia, China at Singapore, Hong Kong, Osaka and Tokyo without the general or the special permission of the Reserve Bank of India. As in different branches of the bank has different policies of the deposited amount into the bank.
Issues Raised
- Whether the terms and conditions on which the deposits will govern?
- Whether those terms and conditions been violating the section 4(1) of the act?
- Whether the penalty be imposed under section 23 of the act or it be contravening the Article 14 or in the consequence void.
Parties Contention
Petitioner
The petitioner has filed the suit stating that the bank deposits shall fall under the act that it must goes under the very root of the jurisdiction of the Director of Enforcement to proceed under the impugned section.
Defendant
The defendant has already denied the accusations against the him as the act does not be liable to such penalties and to convenient to dispose off the last contention firstly.
Judgement
The court has stated that the depositions must have severable policies which must be set by the different banks as different banks have distinctive rules on which they governs. So he must statute that the deposit shall be accountable to every individuals.
Rule of Law
The basic rule of law which was applied here was that according to the act, several deposits must follow the rules on which the whole system governs.
Comment
According to my personal opinion, the court taken the appropriate decision that the act must be followed strictly which should be considered as superior.
Conclusion
To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision that the contravention must took place as five thousand is adjudged by the Director of the Enforcement in the matter. As the liability must not exceed 3 times of the value of the foreign exchange.