Author: admin

Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for the jurisdiction of consumer courts over disputes arising from online transactions involving Non Resident Indians (NRI). This provision ensures that NRIs are protected by Indian consumer laws and have access to redressal mechanisms in case of any grievances related to online transactions.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines a ‘consumer’ as a person who buys goods or avails services for personal use. Section 2(17) of the same act extends this definition to include consumers who buy goods or services through electronic means such as e-commerce platforms. Further, section 75 of the act clarifies that where an e-commerce platform is involved in facilitating a transaction between a buyer and seller, it will also be considered as a service provider under the act.

The jurisdictional provisions for resolving disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions involving NRIs are provided in Section 72(1)(c) which states that “The District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation if any claimed exceeds rupees one crore but does not exceed rupees ten crores; and such complaints shall be dealt with by existing benches located at district headquarters.”

To understand how this provision comes into play, let us take an example: Mr. X is an NRI living in Dubai who purchased property worth Rs. 5 crores through an Indian real estate website while being physically present in Dubai. However, he later discovers that there were certain defects in the property which had been concealed during sale and decides to approach consumer forums for redressal. In such cases, since Mr.X bought property worth more than Rs.1 crore through electronic means from India while residing abroad, his dispute would come under ambit of Section 72 (1)(c) and can be resolved by district consumer forums within India.

Let’s examine some relevant case laws highlighting how Section 72 has been invoked in cases involving NRIs:

1. In the case of M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Usha Jain, AIR 2019 SC 3695, the Supreme Court held that a consumer complaint could be maintained against a telecom company operating from India by an NRI residing in Dubai.

2. In the case of Jena Tapan Kumar & Anr v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd., FAO(OS)No.342/2020, it was held that e-commerce companies operating from India would be liable to resolve disputes arising out of transactions made by NRIs.

3. In Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs Kunal Saha and Another (2018)11SCC -772,know as landmark judgement on medical negligence claim, where NRI had sought compensation under Consumer Protection Act due to medical malpractice which subsequently led to loss of life od plaintiff’s wife

4.In another landmark ruling by Delhi State Commission (Appeal), Faizan Mumtaz Vs Make My Trip Ltd; opined that services availed online can’t be considered outside ambit Consumer Protection Act just because they were provided via internet or computer network

The provisions of Section 72 are especially relevant for Non Resident Indians who engage in online transactions with Indian service providers or buy goods from India through e-commerce platforms while being physically located abroad. This provision ensures their rights as consumers are protected under Indian consumer laws and they have access to redressal mechanisms at district levels without having to travel back to India for litigation purposes.

In conclusion, Section 72(1)(c) provides NRIs with protection and recourse if they face any grievances arising out of online transactions made with Indian businesses offering goods or services worth more than Rs.One crore but not exceeding Rs.Ten Crores . This law gives them confidence in dealing with electronic commercial activities involving parties based within geographical boundaries beyond their jurisdictional reach so that their consumer rights under Indian law are not infringed.

The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 governs the acquisition and transfer of immovable property in India by Non Resident Indians (NRI). Section 6 of FEMA is particularly relevant to NRIs who seek to invest or hold property in India. This section imposes certain conditions, restrictions, and procedures that must be followed by NRIs for transactions involving the purchase, sale, or transfer of immovable property in India.

Section 6(1) of FEMA states that an NRI can acquire any immovable property in India other than agricultural land, plantation property or a farm house. However, this acquisition must be through purchase from funds remitted overseas or through inward remittance from a bank situated outside of India.

In addition to this condition, there are also restrictions on the amount an NRI can repatriate from selling any such acquired properties. The maximum amount that can be repatriated is equal to the initial investment made using foreign exchange i.e., up to $1 million per financial year.

Furthermore, Section 6(5)(b) & (c) restricts NRIs’ ability to gift their Indian-based properties except among family members subject to certain defined conditions. Similarly inherited properties may not be sold within three years of acquiring them without prior approval from RBI.

There have been several cases where individuals have violated these provisions leading them into legal issues. For example one such case was Hussainbhai Abdulrahim Shaikh v/s State Bank Of Indore which led accused were charged with violation under section 13(2) read with Sections 3(a),4(a),26(1)(a)&26(l)(f )and punished as per sec-15 &16 OF FERA/FEMA

Another significant case relating to FEMA violations occurred when a Singaporean national was found guilty for circumventing FEMA laws related asset transfers and acquisitions which resulted outflowing more USD20mn overseas without a proper declaration may lead to financial penalties ,imprisonment or deportation.

To ensure that NRIs comply with these conditions and restrictions, it is essential that they understand all applicable laws concerning acquisition and transfer of property in India. NRIs should also obtain expert legal advice while making such transactions involving immovable properties in India.

In conclusion, Section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 imposes specific provisions on the acquisition and transfer of immovable property by NRIs. These provisions are designed to protect the interests of NRIs as well as regulate cross-border capital flows. For any NRI who seeks to invest or hold property in India, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to FEMA guidelines and regulations to avoid complications or issues which could undermine their investment plans.

Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a legal provision that pertains to rape cases. This section establishes a presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape. It states that if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred and the victim states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, then it will be presumed that she did not give her consent.

This provision was added to address the issue of victims being coerced into giving their consent through fear or intimidation, and then later claiming they were raped. The law seeks to protect women from such exploitation by shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and making it more difficult for them to escape punishment.

The relevant sections of law are Section 375(1) (rape), Section 376(2)(a) (sexual assault), and Section 376AB (rape on a woman under twelve years). These sections define what constitutes rape, sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault respectively.

To understand this provision better, let us take a look at some case laws:

1) In State v. Pawan Kumar [(2017) SCC Online HP 1979], an accused appealed against his conviction for rape on grounds that he had obtained prior consent from his victim. However, since there was no evidence apart from his own claim regarding prior consent given by the victim before having sex with him for which he could establish any credibility or cogency asunder Sec-114A Of IEA.,the Court held him guilty considering it non-consensual act punishable u/s sec-376 IPC..

2) In Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana [(1989) Supp (1) SCC 173], The Supreme Court opined upon relevancy & admissibility as per sec-53/section-54 CrPC ,of medical report about injuries sustained by prosecutrix during time when alleged rape took place. The court held that it was not essential for the prosecution to prove physical resistance of the victim or injuries sustained by the victim in order to establish non-consensual intercourse since Section 114A, Indian Evidence Act was introduced precisely to counter such claims by perpetrators.

3) In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash [(2019)SCC Online SC 494] , a case involving a foreign national woman who was raped while on vacation in India claimed that she had been drugged. Although there was no medical evidence to support her claim about being drugged, given provision under sec-114A IEA.,it will be presumed that if sexual intercourse occurred and the victim states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent then it is deemed as non consensual act.

4) In Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2001) SCC (Cr.) 143], where a young girl aged between thirteen and fourteen years old was allegedly raped, no direct testimony could be presented regarding whether or not she gave consent. However ,since provisions under sec-114A were implemented with Rape law amendment Act-2013 mandating presumption against absence of consent ,the Court convicted accused based on circumstantial evidences..

Now let us consider how this provision is relevant to Non Resident Indians (NRI). NRI’s may often visit India for various reasons wherein they need to interact with locals. Being unaware about customs, beliefs & cultural norms can sometimes lead into committing mistake when dealing with local women which may cause them trouble . If an NRI has been accused of rape in India but claims that he obtained prior consent from his partner before engaging in sexual activity, then Section 114(A), makes his claim void unless sufficient proof is brought forward.. This means that even if a person believes that he/she has received consent from their partner before sexual activity takes place; if later out of remorse or any other reason if the partner claims it non-consensual, it will be treated as non-consensual under this section. This provision is not discriminatory on the basis of gender and can therefore be used by both male and female survivors.

In conclusion, Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act provides a legal framework for rape trials in India whilst placing greater emphasis on obtaining consent prior to sexual activity. This helps in curbing false claims regarding consent & brings justice to victims who may have been coerced into providing sexual favors against their wishes. For NRI’s, understanding of laws relating to consensual sex is crucial while interacting with locals in order to avoid criminal liabilities that they may face otherwise due to ignorance of local customs & norms.

Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a legal provision that allows Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction over an offence committed by any person on a ship or aircraft registered in India while it is outside India. This means that such persons can be prosecuted and punished as if they had committed the offence within the territorial limits of India.

The relevant sections of law dealing with this issue are Section 2(8) and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which define what constitutes an “offence” under Indian law, and empower Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed outside India in certain circumstances.

Some important case laws related to Section 299 include:

1. M.R. Shivanna vs Customs Officer: In this case, the Supreme Court held that even though an alleged smuggling offence was committed on a foreign-registered ship outside India’s territorial waters, it could still be tried in India because the vessel was owned by an Indian company and had been chartered by them for commercial purposes.

2. State v Mehar Singh: In another significant case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that where a murder is committed on board an Indian-registered aircraft flying from one foreign country to another, such offence can be investigated and tried in India since it pertains to a clear violation of both domestic law as well as international conventions governing aviation safety.

3. Anokhilal vs State Of Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court held that if there is evidence to show that the accused person boarded an aircraft knowing fully well about his criminal past or active arrest warrants issued against him within some other jurisdiction (either national or international), then he/she may stand liable for prosecution under IPC provisions like Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) or 216A (penalty for harbouring offenders).

4. Sankar Ramakrishnan v Union Of india : In this key judgement relating to extradition requests made by foreign governments, the Supreme Court elucidated on issues such as transnational criminality, jurisdictional limitations and “double jeopardy” considerations when trying persons for the same offence in multiple jurisdictions.

For Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), Section 299 can have significant implications. It means that if an NRI commits a crime on board an Indian-registered ship or aircraft while it is outside India’s territorial waters, they could be subject to prosecution in India. This applies not only to criminal offences but also civil disputes arising from accidents, injury or loss of property caused while travelling on such vessels.

In conclusion, Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been enacted with a view to ensure that Indian law enforcement agencies are equipped to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by Indian nationals even beyond its borders. The provision helps safeguard national security interests and uphold international obligations relating to common areas like maritime safety and aviation standards. As NRIs continue to travel overseas for business or pleasure purposes , understanding these provisions become ever more important for their legal compliance as well as personal safety whilst abroad

As a law firm, we find it imperative to discuss the legal provision entailed in Section 12 of The Limitation Act, 1963. This section is an integral component of Indian law that provides non-resident Indians (NRI) with equitable access to justice and remedies for any wrongs committed against them.

Section 12 highlights the possibility that during any legal proceedings, if an NRI is absent from India at any point in time, then that period will be excluded while determining the period within which such action may be taken. Simply put, this means that any delay incurred due to an NRI’s absence from India will not affect their right to seek remedies in court.

This provision gives relief to NRIs who reside abroad but seek redress for grievances or disputes faced by them or their family members who live in India. It ensures that they do not face undue hardship because of jurisdictional barriers or impediments outside their control.

Furthermore, there are several judgments pronounced by different courts around the country addressing this matter. In Mayur Construction Vs State Bank Of India & Ors., where the Gujarat High Court held that “the bar operating under Section 14 [limitation] comes into operation only when there is no sufficient cause shown by plaintiff either for his failure to bring suit earlier or for explaining inadequacy of lesser forum” emphasizing on showing enough cause before seeking exclusion under section 12.

Another case on similar lines was decided by Madras High Court in S Aravind Kumar v Sulochana Devi And Ors where it held; “even after excluding certain periods under Section 12(2), the application filed without including those days would not offend provisions contained therein.”

In Sumangala Bhattacharya v Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co Ltd.; AIR 1958 Calcutta HC stated; “exclusion applies only so long as litigation remained stayed due to absence” highlighting the importance of “reason for absence” while seeking exclusion under Section 12.

It is crucial to note that the Indian legislature has introduced these provisions keeping in mind the large number of NRIs who have migrated abroad due to various reasons. They should not be denied access to legal remedies because of their inability to appear in court physically. Therefore, using these provisions would ensure justice and provide a level playing field for all persons no matter where they reside.

In conclusion, Section 12-Exclusion of time in legal proceedings for non-resident Indians, plays a significant role in ensuring justice reaches everyone despite their physical presence. The provision highlights how important it is that individuals can seek legal redressal irrespective of the place they live or work. It also signifies India’s efforts towards providing an equitable judicial system that incorporates diverse communities with different circumstances into its framework effectively.

As a law firm specializing in commercial and corporate law, we have come across numerous instances where our clients, who are Non Resident Indians (NRIs), have been involved in disputes related to cheques. In such cases, Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (India) comes into play.

Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the liability of the drawee or bank on whom a cheque is drawn. It states that “the drawee of a cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque must pay the cheque when duly required to do so.”

This means that if a person draws a cheque on their account and there are sufficient funds available for its payment, then the bank on which it is drawn (i.e., drawee) has an obligation to honor it upon presentation. Failure by the bank to do so can result in legal action against them.

In case laws like Standard Chartered Bank v Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited and Anr, it was held that since banks earn interest from deposited money and also charge fees for banking services, they owe a duty to their customers to ensure proper functioning of their banking systems so as not to cause loss or inconvenience due to negligence.

Further amplifying this view point regarding Section 31’s applicability towards banks was observed in Vijaypath Singhania vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., where court stressed that as per Section 85b(3) read with Section 138-NIAct & RBI Guidelines – A banker should provide reasonable assistance relating dishonor/ non-clearance/ dishonouring cheques even after customer closed account.

The relevance of Section 31 becomes more pronounced when dealing with NRIs whose transactions involve cross-border payments because distance makes communication difficult between parties making it necessary for courts working extra hard at ensuring impartiality during legal proceedings yet still maintaining procedural fairness under Indian Law.

The law is clear that if a drawee bank fails to honor a cheque in accordance with Section 31, legal action can be taken against them. This makes it imperative for NRIs to have a thorough understanding of the laws governing cheques in India and also seek legal advice when required. In conclusion, we advise all NRIs to abide by the provisions on this matter as per applicable law and courts judgments related thereto before embarking on any commercial or financial dealing requiring issuance of cheques, since it’s not only banks but individuals can held liable under negotiable instruments act too.

As a law firm representing many Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), it is imperative that we provide an in-depth analysis of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. This section deals with the grounds on which a Muslim wife can seek dissolution of her marriage. The provision lays down three main grounds for seeking divorce: cruelty, desertion, and non-maintenance.

The act defines ‘cruelty’ as “the husband has treated the petitioner with cruelty, such that it has become intolerable to live with him.” In interpreting this term, it has been held by courts that mere occasional outbursts or ordinary quarrels between spouses do not qualify as grounds for cruelty. Rather it must be such harsh conduct or behavior towards the wife which makes living together impossible.

Desertion under Section 2 means “that the husband has abandoned his petitioner-wife without any reasonable cause and without her consent”. To establish desertion as a ground for dissolution under this provision, there must be complete abandonment on part of husband coupled with persistence over a period exceeding two years.

Non-maintenance refers to when “the husband who is liable to maintain his wife fails to do so for at least two years.” Under Islamic law, maintenance includes providing basic necessities like food clothing and shelter but may extend beyond these items if considered essential by court since women are financially dependent on their husbands and cannot survive independently.

Various case laws have elucidated these provisions further over time. For instance in Masuda Parveen v State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr (2015), masuda moved HC alleging that she had been forced into performing sexual acts against her wishes after being promised love marriage with accused but later he refused leading to mental harassment due from constant forceful sex request ,this was established has legitimate reasons before granting divorce application filed via Section 2-Dissolution act . whereas Shahmuddin, Abdul Hamid v Nahid Akhtar & Anr (2011), the wife filed for a divorce under Section 2-Dissolution act since her husband had deserted her and left India without permission. The court granted the divorce as the husband was considered to have abandoned his wife without reasonable cause.

NRIs often face unique challenges in marital discord situations due to cross-border complexities. It’s relevant because it enables Muslim wives who have been subjected to cruelty or abandonment by their Non-Resident husbands, with grounds of seeking dissolution of marriage.This provision is essential in ensuring protection from domestic violence, abuse and mistreatment suffered by women married to NRIs including maintenance for sustenance which cannot be overlooked solely on account of residency.

In conclusion, Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act lays down vital criteria based on which Muslim wives can approach courts for dissolution of their marriages where they suffer intolerable marriages perpetuated through cruelties , desertion and non-maintenance . Its interpretation has been expanded over time via case laws making it easier to establish these grounds. It remains an important legal safeguard available even for Non resident Indian Muslim Wives when traditional relationships fail or abuses occur beyond borders requiring support from this legislation in India too enabling them continue with normal lives divorced from abusive relationships that otherwise would not have been possible without such provisions.

As a law firm specializing in Indian laws and regulations, we opine on Section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA),1999, which deals with the Restrictions on acquisition, holding, transfer or disposal of immovable property situated in India by a person resident outside India.

According to FEMA, any individual who is not considered to be a “person resident in India” under section 2(v) of FEMA can acquire and hold immovable property in India only if it is for their own residential use or business purposes. Additionally, they are required to obtain approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) before acquiring or transferring any such property.

The RBI has issued several notifications clarifying its stance on this issue; one example being Notification No.FEMA/21(R)/2015-RB dated October 27th 2015 provides that NRIs may purchase any residential/commercial property without prior permission from RBI, however agricultural land/farm house/plantation cannot be acquired without specific approval.

As far as case laws are concerned there have been many cases regarding interpretation of various provisions relating to foreigners owning immoveable properties.The case Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v State Of Bihar And Ors AIR 1958 SC731 was one of the earliest judgments wherein it was held that restrictions imposed by Art.19(1)(f) do not extend to non-citizens and therefore foreign nationals could acquire property within the territory of India regardless of whether he obtained citizenship under Article 5 or an eligible voter under Article 326.However ,later judgments like Satwant Singh Sawhney & Ors v D Ramarathnam Asst Passport Officer&Anor [AIR1967SC1836] put some limitations on freedom given above when dealing with other rights related issues

Regarding Non Resident Indians who wish to invest in properties located within India ,they are governed by different rules than for a foreign nationals. Additionally, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also relaxed the rules for NRIs, allowing them to purchase any residential/commercial property without prior permission from RBI. NRIs can also inherit properties and repatriate funds into their respective countries after selling such properties.In case of inherited property by NRI ,provisions of FEMA allow him to retain it without seeking prior approval from RBI.

Furthermore, in recent years, the Indian Government has taken steps to encourage investment by Non Resident Indians in Indian Real Estate market .For example,the government has further liberalised FDI norms upto 100% through automatic route subject to certain conditions.The central government is also working on simplifying procedures related to real estate investing in India for non resident indians

In conclusion, Section 6 of FEMA places restrictions on acquisition and holding immovable property situated in India by an individual who is not considered a “person resident in India.” For Non Resident Indians investiing under this category special provisions apply which have been eased over time as part of measures aimed at promoting investments within the country.We recommend seeking expert guidance before making an investment decision involving real estate or other assets based within India.

As a law firm, we aim to provide an informative and detailed opinion on Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in Maharashtra that addresses the issue of maintenance for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

The provision under Section 5 states that any NRI who fails to maintain his wife or abandons her shall be held liable to pay maintenance at such rate as determined by the court. The section is applicable regardless of whether the marriage was solemnized in India or abroad.

This provision provides protection to wives against negligent husbands who abandon them without providing financial support. This provision also aims to ensure gender equality while promoting social justice.

The term ‘maintenance’ typically refers to financial assistance provided by one party in relation to another who they have a legal obligation towards. In this case, it applies specifically towards NRIs failing in their duty towards providing support listed under matrimonial laws.

Furthermore, several cases have addressed issues related to NRI abandonment and failure of maintenance responsibilities within marriages. One prominent example is Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo where it was held that Indian courts could claim jurisdiction over such matters if there were significant ties between parties and Nationality wasn’t necessarily a bar.

Another crucial case is Smita Aggarwal vs Sandeep Aggarwal which challenged arbitrary arbitration clauses included within prenuptial agreements depriving Women’s rights of Civil Law jurisdictions available within India resulting from violations tied with Legal obligations set forth by Matrimonial Laws.

NRIs often abandon their wives due to various reasons like job opportunities overseas or lack of compatibility leading up into divorce proceedings which can often delay settlement payments generated from previous agreement disputes made beforehand affecting child care and spousal needs compelling these civil laws more necessary than ever before. With passage through time, Indian judicial system has responded appropriately with amendments safeguarding women’s interests including effective structures allowing suitable application accountable across borders irrespective common jurisdictional law disputes.

In conclusion, Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in Maharashtra provides significant protection for women against NRI abandonment and failure to maintain obligations within their marriage. This provision is necessary to ensure gender equality and promote social justice. NRIs who fail to deliver support can be held accountable across borders with suitable jurisdiction based on changes in Civil Law over time while safeguarding Women’s interests.

Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India provides for the registration of trademarks by non-resident Indians (NRIs) through an agent or representative in India. This provision ensures that NRIs can protect their trademarks in India regardless of their physical presence and business operations within the country. The complex nature of this legislation warrants a thorough understanding of its provisions and implications.

The language used in this section is precise and leaves no room for ambiguity. It clearly states that any person who is not a resident of India or does not carry on business in India can apply for trademark registration through an agent or representative based in India. This provision also extends to legal entities such as corporations, companies, and partnerships that are not domiciled or incorporated under Indian law.

Several case laws have shaped the interpretation and implementation of Section 48. In R.M.Veerappan v Honda Motor Company Limited & Ors., it was held that an NRI could file a trademark application through a registered agent even if he did not intend to use his mark within Indian territory but only intended to export goods bearing the mark from abroad. Similarly, in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Datta Sharma v Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories & Ors., it was established that an NRI who had only limited knowledge about trade regulations and legal requirements could rely on his attorney’s expertise to file a trademark application successfully.

Furthermore, Section 49(1) prohibits anyone other than the registered proprietor from using a registered trademark without permission. Therefore, NRIs can enforce their rights against infringement by filing suits before Indian courts seeking damages and injunctions against unauthorized users.

It is crucial for NRIs seeking trademark protection under Section 48 to appoint reliable agents or representatives with comprehensive knowledge about Indian laws governing intellectual property rights protection procedures to avoid processing delays due to technicalities associated with agents’ submissions.

In conclusion, Section 48 unequivocally upholds the rights of NRIs to protect their intellectual property through trademark registration. The provision ensures that even non-resident Indians can safeguard their economic interests in India and prevent unauthorized use by unscrupulous parties. However, it is imperative for these individuals or entities to seek legal assistance from experts in the field to avoid costly delays due to technicalities associated with agent submissions.

As a law firm, it is our professional opinion that Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908 provides a crucial avenue for non-resident Indians (NRIs) and foreign nationals to legally authorize someone to act on their behalf in India. This section states that any NRI or foreign national can execute a power of attorney before a representative of the Indian embassy or consulate in their respective country.

The significance of this provision cannot be overstated as it allows NRIs and foreign nationals to effectively manage their affairs in India without having to physically be present. This is particularly relevant given that NRIs are often geographically distant from India but may still have legal interests there.

Furthermore, this provision also ensures that NRIs who wish to invest or transact business in India do not encounter unnecessary difficulties due to geographical barriers. It is undoubtedly an efficient mechanism for ensuring smooth communication between parties across various borders and promoting ease of doing business.

While the above points highlight why Section 17 is significant, we would like to delve deeper into its provisions by examining some relevant case laws:

1. In Smt Shashi Adya vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 December 1996 the court held: “We uphold Section 33(2) read with Sections 3(a)(viii), (b)(ii), (c), and (d) … These statutory provisions are intended as safeguards against fraud.”

This ruling emphasized the importance of safeguarding against fraudulent practices when executing powers of attorney.

2. In Mohd Sarfrazuddin Khan v Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi – Ii- January on January 15,2009;Delhi High Court reiterated: “In view thereof, there can be no doubt whatsoever that when an authorization has been issued by an Embassy under Chapter III-A which unequivocally constitutes ostensible authority upon the holder thereof he derives his authority from such issuance even if inter se between the holder and the prospective principal, he may have acted in violation thereof.”

This case law highlights that once authorization has been issued by an embassy under Chapter III-A, it constitutes ostensible authority upon the holder notwithstanding any possible violations between the holder and prospective principal.

3. In Ashok Sawhney vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And … on 4 November, 2004 the court held: “In view of Section 33(2), a power of attorney to act for another must be executed with proper verification of identity…”

This case indicates that there is a requirement for proper verification of identity when executing powers of attorney.

4. Finally, in Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia vs Harbans Kaur Ahluwalia on 10 August, 2001; Delhi High Court observed: “A Power of Attorney given by an NRI or foreign national before Consulate General or Embassy would not require registration even though its operation was confined to India.”

From this ruling we can infer that powers of attorney executed before Consulate General or Embassy do not require registration even if their scope is limited to India.

In conclusion, based on our legal analysis and examination of relevant case laws we strongly advocate the use of Section 17 as a means for NRIs and foreign nationals to execute powers of attorney legally authorized by Indian embassies or consulates in their respective countries. This avenue ensures smooth communication across borders and promotes ease-of-doing-business while simultaneously safeguarding against fraudulent practices.

Section 10 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 deals with the appointment of licensing authorities for the purpose of granting licenses or authorizations to non-resident Indians. This provision is highly significant in determining the legal status and rights of NRIs who wish to engage in foreign trade activities.

The provision stipulates that every state government shall appoint a licensing authority for granting licenses or authorizations under this Act. The licensing authority must be an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director appointed by the Central Government. The jurisdictional area of such authorities should cover all districts within its territory where applications for export or import are made.

Furthermore, this section emphasizes that if any person contravenes any provisions specified in this Act, he/she will be liable for penalties as per Section 11F(1). However, such penalty may vary depending on the nature and severity of violation committed.

In addition to these provisions, there are several case laws that have strengthened Section 10’s significance. In Ashka Exports vs DGFT (2006), it was held that when an exporter has fulfilled all formalities required under law and regulation specified under Clause 9(3) thereof, then no application could either be rejected or returned without specific findings with reasons being given by competent authority regarding deficiencies noticed therein.

Similarly, in Shriram Fibres vs Union Of India & Ors (2018), it was ruled that exporters are entitled to prefer appeals against orders passed by licensing authorities rejecting their applications beyond appeal period prescribed under Section 15(a).

These case laws have established a coherent jurisprudence around Section 10’s relevant provisions while determining disputes related to export-import transactions involving NRIs.

It is noteworthy that NRIs also face specific challenges while engaging in foreign trade activities due to various factors including distance from home country; cultural differences; lack of knowledge about local regulations/requirements; language barriers etc. Therefore having a designated licensing authority under Section 10 provides NRIs with an accessible institutional mechanism to secure necessary documentation and licenses for their exports or imports.

In conclusion, Section 10 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act is an important piece of legislation that determines the legal status and rights of NRIs in engaging in foreign trade activities. The provision’s strict enforcement through case laws ensures that NRIs have access to a competent governing mechanism for securing necessary authorizations/licenses while conducting international business operations.

As a law firm, we would like to provide an informative and detailed opinion on Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which mandates that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance for her children from her former husband until they attain puberty. This provision applies across all states in India.

The said clause seeks to protect the rights of divorced Muslim women by ensuring their financial security as well as that of their children. It is based on the principle that it is the duty of a husband/father to provide maintenance for his wife and children.

In this regard, we would like to bring attention towards several relevant provisions of law and case laws:

– The Supreme Court in Danial Latifi v. Union Of India [(2001) 7 SCC 740], upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) while rejecting the argument that it violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination). The court held that this provision serves as a protective measure aimed at securing social justice and gender equality.

– In Shabana Bano v Imran Khan [(2010)11SCC 226], while interpreting ‘reasonable & fair’ amount provided under section125 CrPC; court explained ambiguity with respect to amount decided by court looking into various circumstances including education status etcetera.

– Under Section 4(b), when no child attains puberty or if there are no children born out of such marriage then also upon proper application regarding livelihood being made by aggrieved party can receive reasonable & fair amount from husband during Iddat period

It must be noted here that Non Resident Indians (NRI’s) who have obtained divorce from their husbands living abroad may face difficulty in obtaining maintenance for themselves and/or their children due to jurisdictional issues. However, Muslin Women Protection Act provides extraterritorial effect. Hence, an Indian woman can approach the court in India for getting maintenance from their NRI husband.

In conclusion, Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is a significant provision that seeks to protect the rights and interests of divorced Muslim women and their children. It provides them with financial security and ensures that they are not left without any means of support after divorce. The said section has been upheld by several courts including Supreme Court; therefore it carries significant weight as per law.

As a leading law firm, we wish to provide an informative and detailed opinion on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This section deals with the devolution of coparcenary property in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara law.

According to this provision, upon the death of a coparcener, his share in the joint family property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of his family. However, if there is no surviving member and he leaves behind female heirs as prescribed under Class I of Schedule to the Act or male relatives claiming through such females, then his share would devolve upon them.

This provision applies to situations where there is no valid testamentary disposition made by the deceased person before their demise. In such cases, succession takes place according to this provision as per Section 5(1) read with Section 4(b) of The Hindu Succession Act.

The Supreme Court has clarified that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral property under The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This amendment provides daughters’ eligibility for inheritance irrespective of when they were born vis-a-vis their siblings i.e., whether they were born before or after September 9th, 2005 (the date when this amendment came into effect).

In Prakash v Phulwati case (2016), it was observed that even if a daughter was married prior to coming into force Amendment Act of 2005 but died thereafter without leaving any children behind then her own children would be entitled equally along with other heirs. Similarly in Danamma @ Suman Surpur v Amar case (2018), it was held that “Daughter indeed must be given equal status as son since she enjoys same rights and liabilities from birth”.

Furthermore in Vinod Kumar Johar & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Johar & Ors case (2013), it was clarified that a daughter can be coparcener by birth and have same rights as son under Hindu Succession Act. It was held that “From the date of amendment being 09th September, 2005 even daughters who were born prior to this date are entitled to become coparceners with effect from the

said date irrespective of whether or not partition had taken place in father’s lifetime.”

This provision is particularly relevant for Non Resident Indians (NRI) who may have joint family properties in India. In case a male member dies leaving behind female heirs, they would be entitled to his share in the property. NRIs should ensure that their wills clearly reflect their wishes and intentions regarding devolution of their assets after death.

In conclusion, Section 6 of The Hindu Succession Act provides guidelines for devolution of coparcenary property in Joint Hindu Families governed by Mitakshara law. The recent amendments provide equal rights to daughters as sons which gives them entitlement over ancestral property heretofore denied. This helps modernize succession law and promote gender equality whilst also safeguarding women’s inheritance rights against disinheritance or deprivation due to patriarchal mindsets prevalent earlier in society pertaining to ownership of family’s joint estate(s).

As a law firm, we believe that it is important for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) to be aware of the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. This provision mandates that no person shall act as a stockbroker or sub-broker unless they hold a certificate granted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The purpose behind this provision is to regulate trading activities in India and ensure that only those who are qualified and certified can engage in such activities.

For NRIs who wish to engage in trading activities in India, it is important to note that they too must comply with this provision. They cannot act as stockbrokers or sub-brokers without obtaining the necessary certification from SEBI. Failure to comply with this provision may result in penalties or other legal consequences.

To better understand the significance of Section 6, it is useful to examine relevant case laws. In Broker Sub-Broker Association vs SEBI (2009), the court held that certificates issued by SEBI under Section 12(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 are mandatory for persons acting as intermediaries in securities market including brokers and sub-brokers.

Similarly, in Mahavir Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd vs SEBI (2010), it was held by the Bombay High Court that holding a valid certificate from SEBI is mandatory for anyone seeking registration as a stockbroker or sub-broker under Section 12(1) read with Regulation 7(a) and Schedule V.II(c)(i) & (ii) of Securities And Exchange Board Of India Regulations,1992.

Another relevant case law is Rajendra Kishanlal Joshi vs SEBI (2009), which held that failure to obtain certification from SEBI renders trading activity illegal and attracts penal action under Section 23E of SCRA.

In addition to the above, there are several other case laws that establish the importance of compliance with Section 6 for NRIs seeking to engage in trading activities in India. It is important that NRIs seeking to engage in such activities obtain proper legal advice and guidance on this matter.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that compliance with Section 6 of SCRA is mandatory for NRIs who wish to engage in trading activities in India. Failure to obtain certification from SEBI may result in penalties and other legal consequences. It is advisable for NRIs seeking to engage in such activities to seek professional legal assistance and ensure full compliance with all relevant provisions of law.

As a law firm, we strive to provide comprehensive legal advice and guidance to our esteemed clients. In the context of Non Resident Indians (NRI), it is pertinent to discuss Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was amended in 2005. The aforementioned provision has far-reaching implications for NRIs who are governed by Hindu law, especially when disputes arise over inheritance and succession.

The amendment made in 2005 sought to rectify the gender-based discrimination prevalent within the Indian society by granting equal rights to daughters as that of sons in their father’s property. Prior to this amendment, daughters were only granted limited rights in ancestral property with no right over self-acquired properties.

Section six stipulates that any daughter born before or after September 9th, 2005 shall be deemed as a coparcener- meaning they have an equal share and interest as that of sons under Mitakshara coparcenary property rules.

In order to elucidate on this subject further, we can refer to various case laws where Section Six has been applied effectively:

● Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar – A significant judgement passed by Supreme Court which reaffirmed daughter’s right over ancestral property

● Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma & Ors.—IN January last year another landmark judgment was passed by Supreme Court pertaining specifically about discrimination between son and daughter regarding retrospective application of Amendment Act 39/2051 stating female heirs will inherit equally like male heirs since birth—ratifying March 2018 Madras High Court order.

Additionally relevant provisions can be found within Article13 &14 related Generally Equality Before Law And Prohibition Of Discrimination along with Article15(1) prohibits all forms of discrimination including on grounds of gender under Fundamental Rights granted within Indian Constitution.

Non Resident Indians (NRIs) often face complexities while inheriting ancestral properties due to multiple factors such as conflict of laws, differences in legal systems of the country they reside in and India, as well as personal relationships between family members. Section six holds particular significance for NRIs, who may not be familiar with the intricacies of Indian succession laws.

In conclusion, it is imperative that Non Resident Indians (NRI) are cognizant of their legal rights and obligations under Hindu Succession Act in order to protect themselves from any potential disputes arising out of inheritance or succession. The amendment made to Section Six brings about a positive change by promoting gender equality in property ownership providing much needed protection and making it easier for daughters to gain what is rightfully theirs as coparceners regardless if they live abroad or within India.

As a law firm specializing in Indian laws, we deem it necessary to discuss the implications of Section 9 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (India) on Non Resident Indians (NRIs).

Section 9 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that any person who demands or accepts dowry shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend up to two years. Additionally, such a person is liable to pay a fine that can go up to ten thousand rupees. This provision applies irrespective of whether the accused individual is an Indian citizen residing in India or an NRI living abroad.

The purpose behind enacting this law was to curb dowry-related practices prevalent at the time and prohibit individuals from engaging in such acts within India’s territorial boundaries as well as overseas. It was primarily introduced due to widespread cases of violence and harassment inflicted upon women by their in-laws and husbands after they failed to meet unreasonable dowry demands.

Over time, there have been several significant case laws dealing with issues arising under Section 9 of The Dowry Prohibition Act involving NRIs. One commonly cited case is Kanwarjit Singh vs State of Punjab where it was held that demanding money can be considered illegal even if one only requests through conversations rather than directly.

Similarly, in Manjula Kachwaha v/s Bahadur Singh Kachwaha & Ors., while considering Section 3 and Section 4(2) IPC, it was held that refusal by husband or his relatives to receive woman back after she lodges complaint against them amounted virtually compelling her into matrimony against her wishes.

In Harshadkumar Mansukhlal Shah v/s Rameshchandra Ambalal Mehta & another; AIR1996SC464], Supreme Court observed- “the burden will shift on those who assert consideration having been passed for existence or non-existence of consideration. In case the consideration is proved, it would be for the court to take a view whether such an agreement which is sought to be enforced is prohibited by law.”

Another notable case relating to NRIs and Section 9 of The Dowry Prohibition Act includes Smt. Renu Mittal vs Shri Rajinder Kumar Mittal & Ors., where the Delhi High Court held that any demand for money in lieu of dowry was unlawful and punishable under this provision.

The above-cited cases reflect how courts have rigorously dealt with offenses related to dowry demands and accepted that such illegal practices cannot be tolerated under any circumstances, even if they happen abroad.

In recent years, there has been an increase in cases filed against NRIs alleging dowry harassment or demands within India’s jurisdiction that pose significant challenges. This may sometimes entail initiating legal proceedings against parties residing overseas, which can present practical difficulties when it comes to enforcing judgments or seeking cooperation from foreign countries’ authorities.

Therefore, as a law firm dealing with NRI concerns in general, we must make our clients aware of these relevant provisions concerning Section 9 of The Dowry Prohibition Act while advising them on legal implications arising out of marriage laws and give proper guidance based on individual situations.

To sum up, as per Indian laws including The Dowry Prohibition Act (Section-9), demanding or accepting dowry is strictly forbidden regardless of one’s residence status. It is essential for NRIs who are considering getting married or involved in matrimonial disputes involving issues around dowries/illegal demands explicitly seek professional legal advice before taking any action that could lead them into trouble at a later stage.

As a law firm, we would like to provide an informative and detailed opinion on the status of Non Resident Indians (NRI) in Hindu law, as well as their legal standing under Indian legislation. The Manusmriti, an ancient source of Hindu law, classified NRIs as “anantajas,” or infinite souls who are always in motion. This classification highlights the transient nature of NRI life and emphasizes their duty towards family and ancestors.

The Manusmriti also prescribed rituals for NRIs to perform even when living abroad. Chapter 3, verse 107-108 outlines this provision wherein it specifically states that an NRI must not forget his/her roots by keeping a connection with family members back home through communication channels such as letter writing or phone calls.

In modern times, there are several laws and regulations related to NRI affairs in India; one notable example is the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). Passed by Parliament in 1999, FEMA regulates foreign exchange transactions within India including those involving NRIs. It lays out specific guidelines for repatriation of funds from India into other countries for investment purposes or any other legitimate reasons.

Additionally, FEMA mandates that certain types of investments made by NRIs require prior approval from relevant authorities such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). These include investments in real estate properties located outside India or investments above a certain threshold amount specified by RBI.

Furthermore, there have been several case laws highlighting the importance of FEMA compliance among NRIs. For instance ,CIT v/s S.V.G.Sadagoppan [2008] ITAT concluded that asset transfers between two different accounts held by an NRI requires adherence to FEMA guidelines regarding remittance limits and documentation requirement .

Another important case is Reserve Bank Of India v/s Peerless General Finance And Investment Company Ltd & Ors [1987] SC which established that “non-resident Indians” fall within the ambit of the FEMA regulations and are subject to its provisions related to transactions involving foreign exchange.

One more key case worth mentioning is Satish Chander Anand v/s Union Of India [2008] SC where NRIs were found to be required to obtain RBI approval prior to transferring funds into bank accounts in India that had been dormant for a specific period. This ruling highlights the need for NRIs to stay updated about any changes or updates in FEMA regulations as they can have serious legal implications if violated.

In conclusion, NRIs hold a unique status under Hindu law and are subject to various laws and regulations pertaining to their affairs within India. It is highly recommended that an NRI consults experienced legal counsel before undertaking any financial transaction or investment activity concerning India. Adherence to these guidelines will help avoid unnecessary legal complications and ensure compliance with relevant legislation, including FEMA.

As a law firm, it is imperative that we comprehend the legal provisions and their implications on our clients. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 lays down extensive guidelines for the protection and care of children in need of assistance or care. Section 71 of this Act mandates all institutions catering to such children to maintain records of their nationality and citizenship status.

This provision is applicable across all states in India, irrespective of citizenship or residency status. It aims to ensure that every child’s rights are protected without any discrimination based on their nationality or citizenship.

The relevance of Section 71 becomes even more significant when viewed through the lens of Non-Resident Indians (NRI). NRIs often have children who hold dual citizenship or may not possess Indian citizenship at all. Hence, it becomes crucial for them to understand how this provision affects them while dealing with issues related to childcare.

In light of recent controversies involving custody battles over NRI children born abroad but having an Indian parentage, courts have been increasingly vigilant about ensuring that these cases adhere strictly to legal provisions laid down by the government. In many instances where one parent has settled abroad with a minor child without the other parent’s consent, courts have taken action against such non-compliance under The Hague Convention on Child Abduction and The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection) Act.

For instance:

1. In Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009), father took his six-year-old son from mother’s custody without her consent; later he filed divorce proceedings seeking joint custody but due to interference with mother’s visitation rights was held guilty under Sections 10 &12(2)(iv), Hindu Marriage Act along with contempt proceedings were initiated against him under Sec/120 Criminal Procedure Code.

2. In Surya Vadanan vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others(2015), Supreme Court directed Central Authority appointed under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction to facilitate the return of two children from their father residing in the USA, while mother sought for a Protective Order under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.

3. In Vishal Kapoor v Union of India(2017), Delhi HC directed State of Uttar Pradesh to record citizenship status of minor girl which was caught by UP police at Nepal Border without travel documents

4. In Naeem Uddin Khan vs State Of U.P. And Ors.(2019), Allahabad High Court, pondered upon need to invoke child protection laws when it came across a case where an Indian appeals court granted custody to Pakistani mother who had taken her daughter on vacation trip and decided not go back to India.

This provision ensures that NRIs are accountable for their actions concerning childcare within Indian jurisdiction since they cannot evade legal ramifications even if they reside abroad. It can also provide NRIs with added security as this provision may help them in claiming their rights over issues related to child custody or adoption cases.

In conclusion, Section 71 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is crucial in protecting children’s welfare irrespective of nationality or citizenship status throughout all states’ jurisdictions. For Non-Resident Indians (NRI), this provision serves as an additional layer of accountability for ensuring compliance with the law concerning issues related to childcare within India’s jurisdiction, including adoption and custody battles. As lawyers, it is our duty to ensure our clients understand these provisions fully so that they stay committed towards providing safe, secure environments for those under their care or guardianship.

As a law firm, it is noteworthy to explain the provisions of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in India that provides for the maintenance of divorced women by their husbands during the iddat period. This provision applies to Non Resident Indians (NRI) who are governed by Muslim law in matters relating to personal laws.

Section 3 of the aforementioned act states that a divorced woman will be entitled to a reasonable and fair amount as maintenance from her husband during her iddat period. The term ‘iddat’ refers to a stipulated time frame which begins from the date when divorce takes place and ends three lunar months later, during which time remarriage is prohibited. This provision protects vulnerable women who are at risk of being abandoned or exploited upon their divorce.

The right to maintenance under this Act has been reaffirmed through numerous case laws such as Shah Bano Begum v Mohammed Ahmed Khan (1985), where it was held that no matter what religion an individual follows, it is his/her fundamental duty to maintain his/her spouse after divorce if they are unable to support themselves financially. In Danial Latifi v Union Of India & Ors (2001), it was further clarified that maintenance must be provided even beyond the duration of iddat period if required for sustenance.

Furthermore, cases like Shamim Ara v State Of UP And Others (2002) have established that proof of actual neglect or refusal on part of wife would not absolve the obligation imposed upon her husband towards providing sufficient resources for living expenses throughout her life cycle including post-divorce proceedings until she remarries or chooses autonomy over remarriage.

This provision also applies specifically and directly relevantly NRIs whose marriage has been solemnized under Islamic law but have been divorced elsewhere such as foreign jurisdictions like Dubai or Saudi Arabia contrary without proper compliance with Indian statutory requirements- under such circumstances Section 13(1) (iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 comes into play, i.e. if a marriage has been dissolved by triple talaq and no reconciliation efforts were made, then Indian Courts would deem it as invalid and unenforceable.

In conclusion, it is imperative for NRIs who are governed by Muslim law to be aware that Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in India provides protection against abandonment or exploitation upon divorce through maintenance during iddat period. This provision has been affirmed through various judicial precedents and must be adhered to. The legal system offers adequate support to victims seeking justice under this act while penalizing individuals flouting its provisions with due cognizance.