Madras High Court
Shri Sameer B.S.Rao vs The Adjudicating Authority
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:1453
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on Delivered on :
18.6.2025 25.6.2025
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002 of 2024
& 6948 & 7290 of 2025 &
WMP.Nos.17451, 17452, 17453, 17454, 17455, 17457
17458, 17459, 17460, 17462, 34530, 34531, 34533,
34536, 34538 & 34539 of 2024 & 7666, 7668, 8111 & 8112 of 2025
Shri Sameer B.S.Rao, Chief
Financial Officer, Xiaomi
Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
having regd. office at Orchid
(Block E), Ground to Fourth
Floor, Embassy Tech Village,
Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer
Ring Road, Bengaluru-560103
Karnataka ...Petitioner in
WP.Nos.15996,
16000 & 16001
of 2024
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.
Ltd. having regd. office at Orchid
(Block E), Ground to Fourth
Floor, Embassy Tech Village,
Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer
Ring Road, Bengaluru-560103
Karnataka rep.by its Chief
Financial Officer Shri Sameer
1/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
B.S.Rao ...Petitioner in
WP.Nos.15998,
15999 & 16002
of 2024
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.
Ltd. having regd. office at Orchid
(Block E), Ground to Fourth
Floor, Embassy Tech Village,
Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer
Ring Road, Bengaluru-560103
Karnataka rep.by its Associate
General Counsel Shri Aswin
Surendran ...Petitioner in
WP.No.6948 of
2025
Sameer B.S.Rao having regd.
office at Orchid (Block E),
Ground to Fourth Floor,
Embassy Tech Village,
Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer
Ring Road, Bengaluru-560103
Karnataka ...Petitioner in
W.P.No.7290 of
2025
Vs
1.The Adjudicating Authority,
Special Director (Sr.), Directorate
of Enforcement, Southern
Regional Office, Chennai
Shastri Bhavan, III Floor,
III Block, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore Zonal Office, III Floor,
2/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
B Block, BMTC, Shanthi Nagar
TTMC, KH Road, Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru-560027. ...Respondents in
all the WPs.
PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of
(i) a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the
impugned notice of hearing dated 04.4.2024 bearing F.No.T.4/SRO/
SDE/BGZO/09/2023 as well as the impugned opinion formed by
respondent No.1 under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Adjudication Rules
(WP.No.15996 of 2024);
(ii) a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice of hearing
dated 04.4.2024 bearing F.No.T-4/SRO/SDE/BGZO/09/2023 as well as
the impugned opinion formed by respondent No.1 under Rule 4(3) of
the FEMA Adjudication Rules (WP.No.15998 of 2024);
(iii) a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned show cause notice
bearing F.No.T-4/SRO/SDE/BGZO/09/2023 dated 09.6.2023 (WP.No.
15999 of 2024);
(iv) a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the
impugned complaint dated 02.6.2023 bearing F.No.T-3/BGZO/01/
2022 (AD-DM) issued by the 2nd respondent (WP.No.16000 of 2024);
(v) a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the
impugned show cause notice bearing F.No.T.4/SRO/SDE/BGZO/09/
2023 dated 09.6.2023 issued by the 1st respondent (WP.No.16001 of
2024);
(vi) a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned complaint dated
3/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
02.6.2023 bearing complaint F.No.T.3/BGZO/01/2022 (AD-DM) (WP.
No.16002 of 2024); and
(vii) Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned
order of respondent No.1 in F.No.T-4/SRO/SDE/BGZO/09/2023 dated
February 10, 2025, quash the same and further direct the respondents
to facilitate inspection of the entire original records of investigation
including the unrelied upon document in F.No.T-3/BGZO/01/2022(AD-
DM) dated 02.6.2023, direct the respondents to provide the certified
copies of the specified documents (tabulated in para 21 above)
requested for by the petitioner and direct the respondents to expunge
the remarks, which indicate that the petitioner is prolonging the matter
(WP.Nos.6948 & 7290 of 2025).
For Petitioners : Mr.K.G.Raghavan, SC for
Mr.Harpreet Singh Ajmani
Ms.Radhika & Mr.Aadith
For R1 & R2 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG
assisted by
Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, SPP (ED)
COMMON ORDER
The subject matters of challenge in all these writ petitions filed
by (a) a corporate entity and (b) its Director and Chief Financial Officer
are (i) the complaint dated 02.6.2023 given in writing by the second
respondent under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management
4/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
Act, 1999 (for short, the FEMA) to the first respondent, (ii) the show
cause notice dated 09.6.2023 issued by the first respondent under
Rule 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication
Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 (for brevity, the FEMA Rules),
(iii) the opinion formed by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of the
FEMA Rules, (iv) the act of proceeding further with the inquiry by
informing the petitioners about the contraventions of the provisions of
the FEMA, the FEMA Rules and the Regulations, etc., under Rule 4(4)
of the FEMA Rules and (v) the denial of inspection of the entire original
record of investigation including the unrelied documents and (vi) for a
direction to provide the certified copies of the same.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and the learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by the
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
FACTS :
3. The case of the petitioners is as follows :
(i) The petitioner company is engaged, inter alia, in the business
of procurement, supply and distribution of Xiaomi branded products in
5/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025India. It was incorporated on 07.10.2014 as a subsidiary of (a)
M/s.Xiaomi Singapore PTE Limited, which holds 99.95% of shares and
(b) M/s.Xiaomi HK Limited, which holds 0.05% of shares.
(ii) To facilitate its business, the petitioner company entered into
royalty agreements with two companies based at United States of
America namely (a) M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated and (b)
M/s.Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (for short, the Qualcomm Entities) as
well as its group company viz. M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software
Company Limited. The petitioners paid a total sum of Rs.5,551.27
Crores towards royalty agreements for the period from 2016 to 2022.
(iii) The petitioners relied upon the Subscriber Unit Licence
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the SULA) dated 27.10.2010,
the Multi-product Patent Licence Agreement dated 01.10.2017 (for
short, the MPLA-1), the Multi-product Patent Licence Agreement dated
01.1.2018 (for short, the MPLA-2), the Master Software Agreement
(MSA) dated 19.11.2010 and the Licence and Royalty Arrangement
Agreement (LRAA) dated 01.12.2017 made effective from 01.4.2017.
(iv) The second respondent commenced an investigation against
the petitioners in the year 2022 and in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 36A of the FEMA, the second respondent
6/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
provisionally attached certain sums of money totalling to
approximately Rs.5,551 Crores being the aggregate amount of royalty
paid during the period from 2016 to 2022 owing to an alleged
contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the FEMA. This seizure
order was confirmed by the Competent Authority by order dated
19.9.2022 and the same was put to challenge before the High Court of
Karnataka and it is pending.
(v) On 02.6.2023, the second respondent filed a complaint
before the first respondent under Section 16 of the FEMA alleging that
the petitioners had contravened the provisions of the FEMA by making
the royalty payments for the benefit of their parent group companies.
The further allegation is that such payment was made without the
permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and that the petitioners
have parked the foreign exchange with its group companies outside
India.
(vi) A notice dated 09.6.2023 was issued by the first respondent
to the petitioners and four others calling upon them to show cause in
writing as to why an inquiry should not be held and as to why penalty
should not be imposed in terms of Section 13(1) of the FEMA. In the
impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent, it has
7/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
been alleged that the petitioners contravened the provisions of Section
3(b) of the FEMA by transferring the funds indirectly to one M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Co. Ltd. and also contravened the provisions of
Section 4 of the FEMA by acquiring and transferring the foreign
exchange to their entities outside India.
(vii) The petitioners allege that though they made a request for
inspection of the entire records of investigation, based on which, the
complaint was given by the second respondent, the said request was
rejected. A notice of hearing dated 11.9.2023 was received by the
petitioners from the first respondent stating that they formed an
opinion that an inquiry should be held in this case in terms of Rule 4(3)
of the FEMA Rules and fixed the date of personal hearing on
06.10.2023.
(viii) On receipt of the notice of hearing, the petitioners
submitted the preliminary objections in terms of Rule 4 of the FEMA
Rules and also sought for recalling the notice dated 11.9.2023.
Arguments were heard by the first respondent and by order dated
24.11.2023, the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
(ix) Earlier, the petitioner company filed 12 writ petitions in total
in W.P.Nos.35654, 35657, 35660, 35662, 35664, 35668, 35636,
8/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
35639, 35641, 35644, 35649 and 35652 of 2023 before this
Court challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated
11.9.2023 initiating the inquiry against the petitioners and also the
order dated 24.11.2023 rejecting the review petition. A learned Single
Judge of this Court, by a common order dated 23.1.2024, disposed of
all the writ petitions in the following terms :
“21. The scope of notice under Rule 4(3)
cannot be expanded so as to arrive at a conclusion
that the Adjudicating Authority has determined the
issues. It is only an opinion formed for the purpose
of conducting an inquiry and on receipt of further
explanations from the petitioners, further opinion
may be formed by the Adjudicating Authority either
to proceed or to drop further proceedings.
22. The opinion formed by the Adjudicating
Authority may be based on the available material
records. Even in the absence of those four relied
upon documents supplied to the petitioners, there
is a possibility of forming an opinion by the
Adjudicating Authority that an inquiry is to be
proceeded under Rule 4 of the Rules. The
Adjudicating Authority is the empowered to take a
decision based on the materials available.
23. Since an opinion has already been
formed by the Adjudicating Authority to proceed9/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025with the inquiry under Rule 4 of the Rules and the
additional relied upon documents sought for by the
petitioners were supplied subsequently after the
issuance of 4(3) notice, it would be suffice, if an
opportunity is provided to the petitioners to submit
their explanation in entirety once again before the
Adjudicating Authority, who, in turn is bound to
consider the explanations and form further opinion,
whether to proceed to inquire or to drop the same
as the case may be and accordingly communicate
the same to the petitioners without causing undue
delay. In order to comply with the above
procedures, the petitioners are granted 30 days
time from today i.e. 23.01.2024 to submit their
explanations in entirety to the Adjudicating
Authority and on receipt of the same, the
Adjudicating Authority shall take a decision and
communicate the same to the petitioner and
thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and in
the manner contemplated under the Act and Rules
in force.”
(x) The petitioners were aggrieved by the said common order
since the learned Single Judge, after having found that the documents
were supplied to the petitioners subsequently after the issuance of the
notice under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules, sustained the opinion
arrived by the first respondent and directed him to provide an
10/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
opportunity to the petitioners and form a further opinion.
(xi) As against the said common order dated 23.1.2024
rendered in W.P.Nos.35660, 35662, 35664 & 35668 of 2023,
the petitioners filed W.A.Nos.588 to 591 of 2024, in which, the First
Bench of this Court delivered a common judgment on 22.2.2024 in
the following terms :
“6. In view of the fact that the learned
Single Judge has observed that the principles of
natural justice are violated in view of the fact that
the documents were not supplied to the appellant,
though was given an opportunity to inspect and
directed to give an opportunity to the appellant to
file its explanation in view of the four documents
supplied later on, naturally the opinion to be
formed would be based on the explanation given
by the appellant upon the supply of all the
documents. As such, instead of further opinion to
be formed by the officer, the adjudicating authority
would form a fresh opinion based on the
explanation submitted by the appellant upon
receipt of the four additional documents. The said
opinion shall be uninfluenced by the earlier opinion
formed. The earlier opinion would be non-est.”
(xii) Further, the other writ appeals filed in both W.A.No.756
of 2024 as well as W.A.Nos.785 to 787 of 2024 respectively as
11/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
against the common order in W.P.Nos.35649, 35644, 35636
and 35652 of 2023 dated 23.1.2024 were disposed of on
05.3.2024 and 08.3.2024 in the same lines.
(xiii) In the above common judgment, the First Bench of this
Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to form a fresh opinion based
on the explanation submitted by the petitioners upon receipt of the
additional documents. Pursuant to the said common judgment of the
First Bench of this Court, a notice of hearing dated 04.4.2024 was
issued by the first respondent. This notice of hearing reflected the
opinion that has been arrived at by the first respondent and the same
has been now put to challenge. The petitioners have also challenged
the complaint given by the second respondent and the refusal to
furnish the entire original records of investigation, which were not
relied upon by the second respondent.
4. The second respondent filed a common counter affidavit in all
these writ petitions wherein he took the following stand :
(i) A show cause notice was issued by the first respondent to the
petitioners and on receipt of the explanation, a notice of hearing was
issued and thereafter, after recording the reasons in writing, an
12/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025opinion has been arrived at and it was communicated to the
petitioners. It was prima facie found that the payments made by the
petitioners were not in compliance with the mandate of the FEMA and
the FEMA Rules.
(ii) The first respondent has strictly gone by the complaint of the
second respondent, the documents and the materials available on
record and formed an opinion, which cannot be challenged by way of
filing a writ petition. During forming of such an opinion, it is sufficient if
the prima facie evidence and the materials point out the contravention
of the provisions of the FEMA and the FEMA Rules. The formation of
the opinion need not be on the basis of a final conclusion. But, it must
be based on the material evidence available for forming such basis.
(iii) These writ petitions are frivolous and have been filed only to
drag on the proceedings. Ultimately, the second respondent sought for
dismissal of these writ petitions.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners made the following submissions :
(a) The corporate structure of the Xiaomi Group is as follows :
13/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025XIAOMI CORPORATION
100% 100%XIAOMI SINGAPORE PTE XIAOMI HK LTD.
LTD.
0.0482%
99.9518%
XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA
PVT. LTD. (“XIAOMI INDIA”) 100%
100%
Beijing Xiaomi
XIAOMI COMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. Mobile Software Co.
(“XIAOMI COMMUNICATIONS”) Ltd. (“BEIJING
XIAOMI”)
Contractual Control
XIAOMI INC.
14/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
(b) The SULA dated 27.10.2010 was entered into between the
said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated (a Delaware Corporation) and one
M/s.Xiaomi Inc. (a company organized under the laws of the People’s
Republic of China) so as to enable the said M/s.Xiaomi Inc. to obtain a
licence of M/s.Qualcomm Intellectural Property to manufacture and sell
the subscriber units in exchange for the licence fees and royalties. The
definition of the word “affiliates” is provided under the SULA and the
petitioner company will directly fall under this definition since it comes
within the same Xiaomi Group and is an indirect subsidiary.
(c) He pointed out to the assignment and amendment of the
SULA dated 16.10.2023 entered into among the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated, one M/s.Xiaomi Technology Co.Ltd., the said M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Co.Ltd. and one M/s.Xiaomi Corporation. By virtue of
this agreement, the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated consented for
the assignment of the licence agreement to the said M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Co.Ltd. subject to various terms and conditions of this
agreement.
(d) Thereafter, another assignment and amendment of the SULA
dated 01.4.2015 was entered into among the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated, the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd., and the
15/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation. By virtue of this agreement, the said
M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated consented for further assignment of the
licence agreement to the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation subject to the
terms and conditions of the agreement.
(e) In the meantime, the petitioner company was incorporated
with effect from 07.10.2014 with its registered office at Bengaluru,
Karnataka State, India. By a notice of sub-licence grant dated
01.7.2015, the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated consented for the
grant of the sub-licence under the licence agreement to the petitioner
company. Thus, the petitioner company became the sub-licensee and
was entitled to carry on the business of procurement, supply and
distribution of Xiaomi branded products in India. As per this
agreement, the petitioners were bound to pay the royalty to the said
M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated since it was providing the technology,
which is governed by the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). These
patents are essential for the implementation of a particular industry
standard such as those used in telecommunications, electronics and
other technology sectors.
(f) When a patent covers a particular component/element/
device/method corresponding to a technical specification for a
16/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
technology that forms part of a standard, such as when a patent is
regarded as an SEP for such a standard, the licensee, who utilizes the
same, has a royalty obligation.
(g) The MPLA-1, the MPLA-2 and the letter dated 18.5.2018
were relied upon and by virtue of the same, the petitioners were
bound to pay the royalty to the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated and a
total sum of Rs.4,450.21 Crores was paid as royalty through the
authorized dealers.
(h) It is also brought to the notice of this Court the MSA dated
19.11.2010, the assignment and assumption agreement of Master
Software Agreement dated 01.10.2012, the assignment and
assumption agreement of Master Software Agreement dated
13.12.2013 in favour of the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd.
and the amendment to the Master Software Agreement dated
01.8.2016 entered into among the said M/s.Qualcomm Technologies
Inc., the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd. and the petitioner
company.
(i) The further royalty of Rs.223.73 Crores was paid to the said
M/s.Qualcomm Technologies Inc., in this regard. Apart from that, there
is an agreement called as the LRAA dated 01.12.2017 entered into
17/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
between the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited
and the petitioner company and towards the same, the petitioners paid
a sum of Rs.877.31 Crores.
(j) In the light of the above submissions, the learned Senior
Counsel questioned the very complaint given by the second
respondent under Section 16(3) of the FEMA, the show cause notice
that was issued under Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules and also the
opinion formed by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA
Rules.
(k) The petitioners made repeated requests for the inspection of
records of investigation and access to the relied upon documents
(RUDs). The first respondent, without supplying the RUDs, proceeded
to form an ex parte opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. On
07.10.2024, the petitioners filed three applications before the first
respondent for inspection of the entire record of investigation, for a
direction to the second respondent to provide the copies of certain
specified documents to the petitioners and for a direction to the other
noticees to provide a copy of their reply given by them to the show
cause notice and the documents submitted by them.
18/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
(l) The first respondent allowed two of the applications and
directed the second respondent to facilitate inspection of the entire
record of investigation and also directed that the specified documents
sought for by the petitioners could be collected during inspection.
However, no decision was taken regarding the copies of the reply
given by the other noticees to the show cause notice and the
documents submitted by them.
(m) When the authorized representative was present in the
Zonal Office of the second respondent, he found that there were
missing pages and that the specified documents were not made
available citing administrative reasons. Even thereafter, several follow
up correspondence were made. But, no answer was forthcoming.
6. After pointing out to the above facts, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made the following legal
submissions :
● The payment made is a current account transaction as defined
under Section 2(j) read with Section 5 of the FEMA.
● The royalty was paid by the petitioners to the Qualcomm entities
and the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company
19/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025Limited for the use of technology/IPR in the normal course of its
business for selling mobile phones in India.
● The invoices were raised by the Qualcomm Entities and the said
M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited on the
petitioner company and the payment was made directly to them
through the authorized dealer banks. In view of the same, the
permission as contemplated under Section 3 of the FEMA will not
apply and the petitioners will fall under Section 5 of the FEMA
read with the terms of Paragraph 3 of the Circular of the RBI
read with Paragraph 4.9 of the RBI Master Directions whereby
such royalty payment will be covered under ‘automatic route’.
● The respondents exceeded in their jurisdiction by initiating a
frivolous litigation, which misled the terms of the royalty
agreement and it is outside the scope of powers vested with
them under the FEMA. In the complaint, there is no clarity as to
the actual contravention made since the second respondent was
not sure of the allegations being made against the petitioners
and conducted the investigation in haste.
● It is not the prerogative of the second respondent to determine
the validity of the contracts or make assertions regarding the
20/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025non payment of taxes and both of them are not the subject
matters within the jurisdiction of the second respondent under
the FEMA. In short, the second respondent is incompetent to
adjudicate or opine on the contractual rights under the Patent
Law. The Authority does not have the domain to re-write the
agreements, which have been entered into by the petitioner
company with the other parties on the basis of commercial
expediencies.
● The second respondent failed to see that the mobile phones sold
by the petitioner company use SEPs/technology of the
Qualcomm Entities and the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile
Software Company Limited. The petitioners made payments
towards royalty and there is no complaint of any double payment
of royalty. The royalty charged from the petitioners is on FRAND
and is not excessive. Such payments were made through the
authorized dealers and there is no loss of foreign exchange on
account of payment of royalty by the petitioner company. In
view of the same, the very complaint of the second respondent is
liable to be quashed.
● If the petitioner company had not paid the royalty, it would have
21/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025resulted in infringement of the provisions of the Patent Act and
such a payment is liable to be made for a seller of imported
mobile phones in India for the SEPs. To substantiate this
submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in the case of LAVA International Ltd. Vs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson [reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Delhi 2497].
● The opinion formed by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of
the FEMA Rules suffers from illegality since the first respondent
has proceeded on a fundamental misconception of law. To
substantiate this submission, reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar
Pandey Vs. Union of India [reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 881].
● There is no alternative remedy available to the petitioners since
the formation of opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules is
not appealable under Section 19 of the FEMA and therefore, the
above writ petitions are maintainable.
● A composite show cause notice has been issued since it dealt
with the inquiry to be held and the penalty to be imposed and
22/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025also sought the seized amount to be confiscated. This would
show that the show cause notice was issued with a pre-
conceived mind and it is bad in law. To substantiate this
submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati
High Court in the case of Sunita Agarwal Vs. SEBI [reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine Gauhati 2325].
● The show cause notice also circumvent the two step process
mandated by law and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement
[reported in 2010 (13) SCC 255].
● A Statutory Authority can only act in the manner prescribed by
the Statute and cannot go beyond its ambit. To substantiate this
submission, reliance is placed on the decision judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of L.Hirday Narain Vs. ITO [reported
in 1970 (2) SCC 355].
● The opinion arrived at by the first respondent would show the
non application of mind without considering the objections raised
by the petitioners and it is in gross in violation of the principles
of natural justice. To substantiate this submission, reliance is
placed upon the First Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court
23/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025in the case of Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar Vs. Union of
India [reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bombay 987 : 2014
(1) Maharashtra LJ 838].
● The burden of proof to demonstrate the contravention under the
FEMA is on the second respondent. However, this burden has not
been discharged by the second respondent. Since this onus has
not been satisfied, the very complaint itself is bad in law and
Section 42 of the FEMA is not satisfied in so far as the
proceedings against the Executive of the company is concerned.
● The proceedings initiated by the second respondent is vitiated by
bias since he is under a pre-conceived notion that the petitioners
have contravened the provisions of the FEMA only based on his
interpretation and understanding of the various agreements
entered into by the petitioner company with the other parties.
● The petitioners have the right to inspect the entire record of
investigation in order to assess both the inculpatory and
exculpatory documents whereas the second respondent has
cherry picked selective documents and handed over to the
petitioners. This is in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of
24/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
Enforcement [reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920].
● There were several missing pages in the record of investigation
and the documents, which were referred to in the complaint,
have not been made part of the RUDs. That apart, the
petitioners are also entitled to the copies of the non RUDs and
most of them are missing from the files. Out of 22 documents
that were sought for by the petitioners, only 8 documents were
furnished. Hence, the petitioners were not in a position to
effectively defend themselves. Reliance is placed on the Division
Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Milind
Patel Vs. Union of India [reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
Bombay 745].
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the respondents made the following submissions :
● The above case is now at the stage of forming the opinion under
Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules and the first respondent applied his
mind on the relevant documents and the stand taken by the
petitioners and had given a prima facie opinion. Such opinion
cannot become a subject matter of challenge in a writ petition.
25/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025To substantiate this submission, he relied upon the order passed
by V.Ramasubramanian,J (as he then was) in the case of
Ramakrishna Setty Vs. Special Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Southern Region, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-6
[W.P.No.20592 of 2014 dated 25.8.2014].
● He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs.
Union of India [reported in 2018 (2) LW (Criminal) 64].
● Even though this Court held that the Authority is not even
required to assign reasons in writing while forming the opinion,
the respondents strictly followed the Circular dated 26.9.2014
that was issued after the First Bench judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar, which was
confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the delay
condonation petition in the special leave petition filed at the
instance of the Union of India vide order dated 04.7.2014.
● The entire proceedings under the FEMA and the FEMA Rules is
structured in such a way that the inquiry against the noticee is
yet to commence and that will start only after forming an opinion
under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. At that stage, the
26/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025Adjudicating Authority is required to given an opportunity to such
a person to produce such documents as evidence as he may
consider relevant to the inquiry. It is only at that stage, the
disclosure of the reports and the evidence that are in possession
of the Department will have to be furnished so as to enable the
petitioners to effectively defend themselves. Without even
reaching that stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to make
the submissions on merits and make this Court adorn the role of
the Adjudicating Authority.
● The petitioners have sufficient alternative remedies in terms of a
right of appeal under Section 19(1) of the FEMA and a further
appeal is provided under Section 35 of the FEMA before this
Court on questions of law. Thus, the Legislature itself has
brought the High Court into the scene only at the stage of
further appeal whereas the petitioners want this Court to enter
the scene even at the stage of formation of opinion under Rule
4(3) of the FEMA Rules.
● It is the defence taken by the petitioners that Section 5 of the
FEMA will apply and they are not covered under Sections 3 and 4
of the FEMA. This is a ground, which has to be established before
27/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025the first respondent during inquiry and it cannot be raised in the
above writ petitions. The first respondent has assigned reasons
and given prima facie findings while forming the opinion on each
of the issues and such formation of opinion is not final. But, it is
only a beginning of the inquiry by the Adjudicating Authority.
Whatever the defence that is now taken by the petitioners will
have to be put forth before the first respondent and ultimately,
the proceedings may be dropped or if it results in imposition of
penalty, there are sufficient alternative remedies available to the
petitioners.
● The letter of the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated to the said
M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and the petitioner dated
18.5.2018 is the basis, on which, the entire payment has been
made by the petitioners to the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated
and in this letter, the petitioner company has been identified only
as a third party, which will be paying the royalty on behalf of one
of the entities falling under the group. Therefore, such payments
should have been made only after getting the prior approval
under Section 3 of the FEMA.
● The FEMA is a complete Code in itself and it adequately provides
28/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
for structuring the rights and remedies available to a person,
who is aggrieved by any adjudication under the FEMA. In view of
the same, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction at the
nascent stage of the proceedings. To support this submission, he
relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Raj
Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of
Enforcement [reported in 2010 (4) SCC 772] and in the
case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip
[reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435].
● The judgment of the Apex Court in Amarendra Kumar
Pandey, which was relied upon on the side of the petitioners will
not apply to the facts of the present case since that judgment
arose out of disciplinary proceedings, which required recording of
reasons while passing the order of discharge. According to the
learned Additional Solicitor General, the ratio in a case has to be
understood only based on the actual issue that is involved in the
case based on facts. The ratio in that judgment cannot be
applied in the proceedings under the FEMA where the language
used under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules does not contemplate
assignment of reasons while forming the opinion.
29/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
● In so far as the documents sought for by the petitioners were
concerned, that stage has not yet reached and while forming the
opinion, the first respondent applies his mind only to those
documents that have been relied upon by the second respondent
and the copies of those documents are available with the
petitioners. The question of calling for the non RUDs will arise
only at the stage of defence.
● Reliance is also placed on a common judgment of the Three
Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Gupta Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal
Nos.1622 of 2022 & 730 of 2024 dated 07.5.2025].
● The materials that have been collected prima facie reflected that
the petitioners made huge payments on behalf of the entities
outside India. That apart, the petitioners were not willing to
share the accounts and kept them as a secret, which is evident
from the statements recorded from the officers belonging to the
authorized dealers.
8. In reply to the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, made the following
30/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
submissions:
● The judgment of this Court to the effect that no reasons need to
be assigned while arriving at an opinion pales into insignificance
by virtue of the confirmation of the First Bench judgment of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Shashank Vyankatesh
Manohar, which was also acted upon while issuing the Circular
dated 26.9.2014.
● If such opinion is backed up with reasoning, automatically it can
be tested if it falls foul of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court
in the case of Amarendra Kumar Pandey.
● Except for the opportunity of personal hearing, all the other
requirements have to be satisfied even till the stage of forming
an opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. Even though the
petitioner company was called as a third party in the letter dated
18.5.2018, there is a specific term used namely ‘affiliate’. The
petitioner company is identified as an ‘affiliate’. The petitioner
company has been referred to as a third party qua the MPLA-2
dated 01.1.2018 entered into between the said M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Company Limited and the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated.
31/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
● The non RUDs sought for by the petitioners would have to be
furnished to them since, after forming the opinion, the case has
reached the defence stage and therefore, the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Gupta will apply.
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
CASE HISTORY :
10. These writ petitions challenge various stages of the
adjudication proceedings initiated under the FEMA against the
petitioner namely M/s.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, a
wholly-owned Indian subsidiary of the Xiaomi Group. It is alleged that
the petitioners remitted royalty payments to their group entities and to
the Qualcomm Entities without obtaining prior approval from the RBI,
thereby contravening certain provisions of the FEMA. Pursuant to an
investigation conducted by the of Enforcement Directorate (ED),
proceedings were commenced, which culminated in the filing of a
complaint dated 02.6.2023 by the second respondent under Section
32/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
16(3) of the FEMA before the first respondent and the issuance of a
show cause notice dated 09.6.2023 by the first respondent.
11. The petitioners have assailed different stages of the
adjudication proceedings through a series of writ petitions filed before
this Court, specifically:
(i) the complaint dated 02.6.2023 filed
by the second respondent has been challenged
in W.P.Nos.16000 and 16002 of 2024;
(ii) the notice of hearing dated
04.4.2024 and the formation of opinion by the
first respondent under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA
Rules have been challenged in W.P.Nos.15996
and 15998 of 2024;
(iii) the show cause notice dated
09.6.2023 issued by the first respondent has
been challenged in W.P.Nos.15999 and 16001
of 2024; and
(iv) the order dated 10.2.2025 rejecting
the petitioners’ request for full disclosure of the
records has been challenged in W.P.Nos.6948
and 7290 of 2025.
12. The petitioner company viz. M/s.Xiaomi Technology India
33/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated on
07.10.2014 under the Companies Act, 2013 with its registered office at
Bengaluru, Karnataka State, India. It carries on the business of
procurement, distribution and sale of Xiaomi-branded products within
the Indian market. The petitioner company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the said M/s.Xiaomi Singapore PTE Ltd. and the said
M/s.Xiaomi HK Ltd., which are, in turn, a part of the Global Xiaomi
Group, head-quartered in China.
13. The said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation, a Chinese multinational
entity, is the parent company of the Xiaomi Group and holds 100%
shareholding in both the said M/s.Xiaomi Singapore PTE Ltd. and the
said M/s.Xiaomi HK Ltd. The petitioner is a step-down subsidiary of the
said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation, with 99.9518% of its shares held by the
said M/s.Xiaomi Singapore PTE Ltd. and the remaining 0.0482% held
by the said M/s.Xiaomi HK Ltd. The other group entities relevant to the
present proceedings include the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.
Ltd. and the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company
Limited, which are wholly owned companies of the said M/s.Xiaomi HK
Ltd. The said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. is contractually
34/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
controlled by the said M/s.Xiaomi Inc.
14. It is evident from the record that even prior to the
incorporation of the petitioner company, a series of commercial and
licensing agreements had been executed between the entities of the
Xiaomi Group and the Qualcomm Group. These agreements laid the
foundational framework for the licensing of intellectual property rights
and the consequent royalty payment structure that forms the subject
matter of the present proceedings.
15. The SULA dated 27.10.2010 was executed between the said
M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated and the said M/s.Xiaomi Inc. Under the
said agreement, mutual rights were granted to use each other’s
intellectual properties, including by their respective affiliates, subject
to certain conditions. This agreement stipulated that sub-licenses could
be granted only to affiliates defined as wholly owned subsidiaries of
the licensee. The said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated was to manufacture
and sell CDMA components, while the said M/s.Xiaomi Inc. provided
subscriber units and components.
16. Pursuant to the execution of the SULA, the MSA dated
35/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
19.11.2010 was executed between the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated and the said M/s.Xiaomi Inc., governing the
development, manufacture and sale of wireless subscriber equipment.
Thereafter, by way of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement
dated 01.10.2012, the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated assigned its
rights and obligations under the MSA to the said M/s.Qualcomm
Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary, thereby
effecting a transfer of the contractual relationship to the said
M/s.Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
17. Subsequently, the rights under the SULA were further
assigned by the said Xiaomi Technology Co.Ltd. to the said M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Co.Ltd. through an Assignment and Amendment
Agreement dated 16.10.2013. The said agreement was executed
among the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated, the said M/s.Xiaomi
Technology Co. Ltd., the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd. and
the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation. Through this agreement, the said
M/s.Xiaomi Corporation was recognised as the parent entity of the said
M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd. and its shareholders.
18. On 13.12.2013, a further Assignment and Assumption
36/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
Agreement was executed among the said M/s.Qualcomm Technologies
Inc., one M/s.Qualcomm CDMA Technologies Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd and
one M/s.Qualcomm Innovation Center Inc., which were collectively
called as M/s.Qualcomm along with the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile
Software Company Limited and the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications
Co.Ltd. Under this agreement, the contractual rights held by the said
M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Technology Company Limited were formally
assigned to the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd.
19. The SULA was further amended by an agreement dated
01.4.2015, executed between the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated,
the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd. and the said M/s.Xiaomi
Corporation. By virtue of this amendment, the parties to the
agreements acceded that the rights and obligations under the SULA
would henceforth vest with the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation.
20. Following the incorporation of the petitioner company, two
categories of royalty payments came to be effected:
(i) the first is to various Qualcomm Group Entities; and
(ii) the second is to the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software
37/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025Company Limited.
These payments were made pursuant to separate sets of licensing
agreements executed with the respective entities.
Category I – Payments to the Qualcomm Entities:
21. The agreements pertaining to the first category of payments
made to the Qualcomm Entities are as under:
a) A Notice of Sub-license Grant dated 01.7.2015 was issued by
the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation notifying the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated whereby the petitioner company was recognised as a
wholly owned subsidiary and granted a sublicense under the terms of
the SULA. This document recorded that the petitioner company, as an
affiliate of the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation, was authorised to utilise
the intellectual property licensed under the SULA framework.
b) An amendment to the MSA was executed on 01.8.2016
among the said M/s.Qualcomm Technologies Inc., the said M/s.Xiaomi
Communications Co.Ltd. and the petitioner company. By this
amendment, the petitioner company was formally included as a sub-
licensee under the MSA and assumed joint and several liability along
with the other parties for obligations arising thereunder.
38/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
c) The MPLA-1 dated 01.10.2017 was entered into among the
said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated, the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation and
the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd. This agreement conferred
upon the licensees the right to use the Qualcomm’s intellectual
property in connection with specific categories of products, including
CDMA and LTE Semi Knockdown Kits (“SKDs”) in consideration of
royalty payments.
d) The MPLA-2 was executed on 01.1.2018 between the said
M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated and the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications
Co.Ltd. This agreement extended sublicensing rights to the licensee
and its affiliates, including the petitioner company in respect of certain
covered products. It was subsequently amended on 01.3.2019 to
include branded CDMA and LTE single-mode complete terminals and
further amended on 01.4.2020 to incorporate new definitions.
(e) It is also relevant to note that by way of a communication
dated 18.5.2018, the said M/s.Qualcomm Incorporated expressly
instructed the petitioner company to directly remit the royalty
payments on behalf of the said M/s.Xiaomi Communications Co.Ltd.
due under the SULA framework to them. This appears to be the only
contemporaneous document on record wherein such an instruction was
39/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
formally issued to the petitioner company .
Category II – Payments to the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi
Mobile Software Company Limited :
22. (a) The second category of royalty payments pertains to the
amounts remitted by the petitioner company to the said M/s.Beijing
Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited under the LRAA dated
01.12.2017, which was stated to have been given effect from
01.4.2017. Under the said agreement, the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi
Mobile Software Company Limited granted a license to its affiliates,
including the petitioner company to utilise the proprietary software-
such as the MIUI operating system-as well as the proprietary hardware
technologies developed by it, in return for the agreed royalty
payments/license fees.
(b) The LRAA was subsequently amended on 01.4.2020. In the
amended agreement, it was recorded that both the said M/s.Beijing
Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited and the petitioner company
were 100% owned subsidiaries of the said M/s.Xiaomi Corporation.
The revised terms prescribed a license fee at the rate of 2% of the
revenue payable in respect of the use of licensed hardware and
40/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
software technologies by the petitioner company.
23. Based on the agreements referred to above, the petitioner
company effected royalty payments to three separate entities towards
the use of the licensed intellectual property, the SEPs and the
proprietary software embedded in mobile handsets sold within India.
The aggregate amount remitted under these arrangements has been
arrived at Rs.5,551,27,15,824/-, with the following break-up:
I. Rs.4,450,21,94,615/- to the said M/s.Qualcomm
Incorporated;
II. Rs.223,73,79,727/- to the said M/s.Qualcomm Technologies
Inc.; and
III. Rs.877,31,41,481/- to the said M/s.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile
Software Company Limited.
24. In early 2022, the second respondent initiated an
investigation into the petitioner company’s foreign outward
remittances. Pursuant to the said investigation, a provisional seizure
order dated 29.4.2022 was issued under Section 37A of the FEMA,
whereby an amount of Rs.5,551.27 Crores corresponding to the
41/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
royalty payments made during the period from 2016 to 2022 was
provisionally attached. This seizure was thereafter confirmed by the
Competent Authority under the FEMA by an order dated 19.9.2022.
The said confirmation order is presently under challenge before the
High Court of Karnataka.
25. On 02.6.2023, the second respondent filed a complaint
before the first respondent under Section 16(3) of the FEMA alleging
that the petitioner company had contravened the provisions of
Sections 3(b), 4, and 42(1) of the FEMA. The complaint also relied on
Paragraph 3 of the AP (Dir Series) Circular No.52 dated 13.5.2010
read with Paragraph 4.9 of the RBI FED Master Direction No.8/2015-16
dated 01.1.2016. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated
09.6.2023 was issued by the first respondent under Rule 4 of the FEMA
Rules calling upon the petitioners to show cause on or before
09.7.2023 as to:
I. why an inquiry should not be held under the FEMA
Rules;
II. why penalty under Section 13(1) of THE FEMA should
not be imposed; and
III. why the seized amount should not be confiscated42/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025under Section 13(1-A) of the FEMA.
26. The petitioners received the copies of the complaint, the
show cause notice and the set of RUDs on 15.6.2023. It is the case of
the petitioners that several documents referred to in the complaint
were not furnished and that various materials submitted by the
petitioners during the course of the investigation were neither included
in the RUDs nor considered in the formation of the opinion against the
petitioners. Between June and September 2023, the petitioners were
stated to have made multiple representations seeking for inspection
and for the issuance of certified copies of the entire record of
investigation, including the non-RUDs. A request was also made for a
personal hearing to explain the relevance and necessity of the
documents sought for.
27. While the request of the petitioners for inspection and
disclosure is still pending, the first respondent, by order dated
11.9.2023, proceeded to form an opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA
Rules and fixed a personal hearing on 06.10.2023. On 20.9.2023, the
petitioners were granted access to certain documents. However,
43/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025according to the petitioners, several crucial records were continued to
be withheld. A Review Petition was filed on 26.9.2023 wherein the
petitioners raised preliminary objections under Rule 4(1) of the FEMA
Rules questioning the maintainability of the complaint filed by the
second respondent and the validity of the opinion formed by the first
respondent in the absence of full disclosure of the documents on the
ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. These objections
were reiterated during the personal hearing held on 06.10.2023. But,
the Review Petition was dismissed by order dated 24.11.2023 by the
Special Director (Adjudicating Authority), ED, Government of India,
Chennai-6 and a further hearing was scheduled for 22.12.2023.
28. Aggrieved by the formation of opinion and the denial of
complete disclosure of documents, the petitioner company filed
W.P.No.35654 of 2023 etc. cases. By a common order dated
23.1.2024, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the first
respondent to form a fresh opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules
after duly considering the objections raised by the petitioner company.
29. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner company preferred
W.A.Nos.588 to 591 of 2024, 756 of 2024 and 785 to 787 of
44/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 20252024 challenging the common order passed by the learned Single
Judge. By separate judgments dated 22.2.2024, 05.3.2024 and
08.3.2024 respectively, the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court set aside
the earlier opinion formed by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of
the FEMA Rules and directed that a fresh and independent opinion
should be arrived at without being influenced by the previous exercise.
This Court further held that the earlier opinion was non est in the eye
of law.
30. In the interregnum, the petitioners submitted detailed
preliminary objections on 21.2.2024 to the show cause notice. In
purported compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble First
Bench of this Court, the first respondent is stated to have formed a
fresh opinion dated 04.4.2024. However, this opinion was not issued
as a formal order and was merely conveyed to the petitioner company
via email dated 18.4.2024 bearing the subject line as “Xiaomi Opinion”
without disclosing the reasons or basis for the decision.
31. By letter dated 20.4.2024, the petitioners sent a reply to the
first respondent through an advocate seeking a copy of the formal
45/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
order recording the opinion along with reasons after making a
reference to Technical Circular No.11/2014. The first respondent, vide
email dated 25.4.2024, responded stating that the opinion had been
completed and formed part of the note sheet of adjudication.
32. During the personal hearing held on 07.10.2024, the
petitioners reiterated their request for inspection of the entire record of
investigation and for the issuance of certified copies of the complete
case records, including documents not forming part of the RUDs. The
first respondent is stated to have directed the second respondent to
facilitate inspection. However, during the inspection conducted on
16.10.2024, the petitioner’s representatives found that the case record
made available was substantially incomplete. Despite issuance of
repeated follow-up letters, full disclosure of the documents sought for
including the certified copies was not furnished by the respondents.
33. Ultimately, on 10.2.2025, the first respondent rejected the
petitioners’ request for disclosure of the additional documents stating
that on the basis of the report from the second respondent, only the
copies of the complaint and the RUDs would be furnished. The
46/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
discretion available under Rule 4(6) of the FEMA Rules to direct
production of additional documents was not exercised. On 11.2.2025,
the petitioners were granted access to only 8 out of the 22 RUDs
referred to in the complaint. The further written request dated
14.2.2025 seeking disclosure of the remaining documents did not elicit
any response from the respondents. It is in this backdrop that the
present writ petitions have been instituted.
ISSUES :
34. The following issues arise for consideration in these writ
petitions:
“(1) Whether the complaint of the second
respondent dated 02.6.2023 under Section
16(3) of the FEMA and the show cause notice
dated 09.6.2023 issued by the first respondent
under Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules suffer from
any illegality and are liable to be interfered by
this Court ?
(2) Whether the formation of opinion
under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules by the first
respondent suffers from any illegality and is
liable to be interfered by this Court ?
47/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
(3) Whether the entire adjudication
proceedings till the stage of formation of
opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules
were as a result of improper understanding of
the various contractual agreements entered
into by the petitioner company with other
parties ? and whether the respondents
proceeded further on a fundamental
misconception of law? and
(4) Whether the non furnishing/rejection
of the request of the petitioners for full
disclosure of the records has seriously
prejudiced the rights of the petitioners in
effectively defending themselves during the
adjudication proceedings till the stage of
formation of opinion?”
DISCUSSIONS :
Issue No.1 :
35. Before this Court ventures to deal with the issues that have
been framed for consideration, it will be apposite to take a close look
at the manner, in which, the FEMA and the FEMA Rules are structured.
36. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Natwar Singh, went
into this aspect and ultimately held as follows :
48/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025“22. That a bare reading of the relevant
provisions of the Act and the Rules makes it
abundantly clear that the manner, method and
procedure of adjudication are completely
structured by the statute and the Rules. The
Authority is bound to follow the prescribed
procedure under the statute and the Rules and is
not free and entitled to devise its own procedure
for making inquiry while adjudicating under Section
13 of the Act since it is under legislative mandate
to undertake adjudication and hold inquiry in the
prescribed manner after giving the person alleged
to have committed contravention against whom a
complaint has been made, a reasonable
opportunity of being heard for the purpose of
imposing any penalty. The discretion of the
Authority is so well structured by the statute and
the Rules.
23. The Rules do not provide and empower
the Adjudicating Authority to straight away make
any inquiry into allegations of contravention
against any person against whom a complaint has
been received by it. Rule 4 of the Rules mandates
that for the purpose of adjudication whether any
person has committed any contravention, the
Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice to such
person requiring him to show cause as to why an
inquiry should not be held against him. It is clear49/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025from a bare reading of the rule that show cause
notice to be so issued is not for the purposes of
making any adjudication into alleged contravention
but only for the purpose of deciding whether an
inquiry should be held against him or not. Every
such notice is required to indicate the nature of
contravention alleged to have been committed by
the person concerned. That after taking the cause,
if any, shown by such person, the Adjudicating
Authority is required to form an opinion as to
whether an inquiry is required to be held into the
allegations of contravention. It is only then the real
and substantial inquiry into allegations of
contravention begins.
24. While holding inquiry into allegations of
contravention, every Adjudicating Authority shall
have the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of
Civil Procedure in respect of the matters, namely,
(a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining him on
oath;
(b) requiring discovery and production of
documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record,
document or copy of such record or document from
any office;
(e) issuing commissions for examination of
50/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
witnesses or documents etc.
That all proceedings before the Adjudicating
Authority shall be deemed to be judicial
proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193
and 228 of the Indian Penal Code; shall be deemed
to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 345
and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
37. It will also be relevant to take note of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare wherein, at
paragraph 15 of the judgment, after taking note of the provisions of
the FEMA and the FEMA Rules, it was concluded that it provides for a
complete network of provisions adequately structuring the rights and
remedies available to a person, who is aggrieved by any adjudication
under the FEMA.
38. Useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the
Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunita Agarwal wherein the
relevant portions read thus :
“106. Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules, 2000
provides that for the purpose of adjudicating under
Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue notice51/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025to such person requiring him to show cause within
such period as to why an enquiry should not be
held against him. Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules,
2000 provides that after considering the cause if
any shown by such person, the Adjudicating
Authority is of the opinion that an enquiry should
be held, a notice fixing a date for appearance of
that person, either personally or through lawyer or
authorised chartered accountant, be issued.
107. While interpreting of the provisions of
Rule 4(1) and 4(3) of the FEMA Rules, 2000, the
Supreme Court in Natwar Singh v. Directorate of
Enforcement, [(2010) 13 SCC 255] arrived at its
conclusion in paragraph 23 of its judgment that the
Rules do not provide and empower the adjudicating
officer to straight away make an enquiry into the
allegations of contravention in respect of any
person, against whom a complaint had been
received. The Supreme Court was of the view that
for the purpose of adjudication whether any person
has committed any contravention, the adjudicating
officer shall issue notice requiring him to show
cause as to why an enquiry should not be held and
the notice to be issued is not for the purposes of
making any adjudication into the alleged
contravention, but only for the purpose of deciding
whether an enquiry should be held. After taking
the cause shown by such person the adjudicating52/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025officer is required to form an opinion as to whether
any enquiry is required to be held and it is only
then the real and substantial enquiry into the
allegations of contravention begins. Paragraph 23
of Natwar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
[(2010) 13 SCC 255] is extracted below (page 313
of 160 Comp Cas):
‘“The Rules do not provide and empower the
Adjudicating Authority to straight away make any
inquiry into allegations of contravention against
any person against whom a complaint has been
received by it. Rule 4 of the Rules mandates that
for the purpose of adjudication whether any person
has committed any contravention, the Adjudicating
Authority shall issue a notice to such person
requiring him to show cause as to why an inquiry
should not be held against him. It is clear from a
bare reading of the rule that show-cause notice to
be so issued is not for the purpose of making any
adjudication into alleged contravention but only for
the purpose of deciding whether an inquiry should
be held against him or not. Every such notice is
required to indicate the nature of contravention
alleged to have been committed by the person
concerned. That after taking the cause, if any,
shown by such person, the Adjudicating Authority
is required to form an opinion as to whether any
inquiry is required to be held into the allegations of53/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025contravention. It is only then the real and
substantial inquiry into allegations of contravention
begins.’
108. While examining the provisions of Rule
4(1) of the PR-1995, the Supreme Court in
T.Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of
India, reported in (2022) 232 Comp Cas 136 (SC);
2022 SCC OnLine SC 210, had in paragraph 34
referred to the proposition laid down in paragraph
23 of Natwar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement,
[(2010) 13 SCC 255]. In paragraph 35, the
conclusion arrived was that the notice under Rule 4
(1) of the PR-1995 is not for the purpose of making
an adjudication into the alleged contravention, but
only for deciding whether an enquiry must be
conducted. It was also held that the stage when an
enquiry is held is subsequent to the initial stage
contemplated by Rule 4(1). In paragraph 36 of
T.Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of
India, reported in (2022) 232 Comp Cas 136 (SC);
2022 SCC OnLine SC 210, it had been held that the
Court distinguishes between the initial stage under
Rule 4(1) which is only for the purpose of deciding
whether an enquiry has to be held and the
subsequent stage of adjudication into the
allegations of contravention.”
54/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
39. The above judgment lucidly explains the scope of inquiry into
the allegations of contravention against any person, against whom, a
complaint has been received, at every stage, till an opinion is formed
under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. The stage under Rule 4(1) of the
FEMA Rules is structured only for deciding as to whether an inquiry
must be conducted. This is not the stage for the purpose of making an
adjudication into the alleged contravention and that stage is reached
subsequently while forming an opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA
Rules.
40. The above said proposition of law was considered elaborately
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.Takano Vs. SEBI
[reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 210].
41. At the stage of Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules, the Authority
cannot embark into the actual adjudication being made, which
ultimately results in imposition of penalties prescribed under the FEMA.
Thus, broadly, three stages of inquiry can be deduced from Rule 4 of
the FEMA Rules. The first stage under Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules is
for the purpose of finding out as to whether an inquiry should be held
55/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
and the Authority will not embark into an actual adjudication. The
second stage is where the Adjudicating Authority is required to form an
opinion after considering the cause shown and issue a notice fixing the
date for appearance. On appearance, the Adjudicating Authority must
explain to the noticee or the legal practitioner appearing for the
noticee the alleged contravention of the provisions of the FEMA and the
FEMA Rules. This is the stage under Rule 4(4) of the FEMA Rules.
Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, after providing sufficient
opportunity under Sub-Rules (5) and (6) of Rule 4 of the FEMA Rules,
must proceed to embark into the actual adjudication, which will
ultimately lead to imposition of any of the penalties provided under the
FEMA. This is the stage under Rule 4(8) of the FEMA Rules read with
Section 16(6) of the FEMA.
42. In the case in hand, the first respondent – Adjudicating
Authority is at the stage of formation of opinion under Rule 4(3) of the
FEMA Rules.
43. The petitioners have not only challenged the opinion formed
by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules, but also the
initial complaint of the second respondent dated 02.6.2023 filed before
56/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
the first respondent and the show cause notice dated 09.6.2023 issued
by the first respondent.
44. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has questioned the complaint made by the second
respondent under Section 16(3) of the FEMA dated 02.6.2023 on the
ground that the complaint itself is misconceived owing to a skewed
understanding of the commercial agreements entered into by the
petitioner with the other companies. The show cause notice dated
09.6.2023 issued by the first respondent has also been challenged on
the ground that it went beyond the scope of Rule 4(1) of the FEMA
Rules, which confines itself only to decide as to whether an inquiry is
to be held. According to him, the first respondent crossed that
boundary and also called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why
penalty should not be imposed under Section 13(1) of the FEMA.
57/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
45 In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary for
this Court to now venture at this stage into the legality or otherwise of
both the complaint of the second respondent as well as the show cause
notice issued by the first respondent since the petitioner company is
now before this Court for the second time after the stage of formation
of opinion by the first respondent under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules.
46. In the first round, the petitioner company filed W.P.Nos.
35654 of 2023 etc. cases questioning the show cause notice issued
under Rule 4(1) of the FEMA Rules and also the opinion formed under
Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. When the earlier writ petitions were
disposed of on 23.1.2024 by a common order, this Court did not go
into the legality of the show cause notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the
FEMA Rules. Only in so far as the formation of opinion is concerned,
this Court directed the first respondent to come up with the further
opinion based on the further documents relied upon by the petitioner
company. At the instance of the petitioner company, the First Bench of
this Court, in the writ appeals filed against the said common order
dated 23.1.2024 in W.A.Nos.588 to 591 of 2024, W.A.Nos.756 of
2024 and W.A.Nos.785 to 787 of 2024 vide separate judgments
58/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
dated 22.2.2024, 05.3.2024 and 08.3.2024 respectively, did not
go into the legality of the show cause notice and they confined
themselves only to the stage of formation of opinion under Rule 4(3)
of the FEMA Rules, set aside the common order dated 23.1.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the first respondent
to form a fresh opinion based on the explanation submitted by the
petitioner company.
47. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to go into
the challenge made by the petitioners against both the complaint filed
by the second respondent as well as the show cause notice issued by
the first respondent at this stage. Considering the earlier orders
passed by this Court, it will suffice to go into the legality or otherwise
of the opinion formed under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. The first
issue is answered accordingly.
Issue Nos.2 and 3 :
48. Issue Nos.2 and 3 can be taken up together since they are
interlinked. Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules is a two step process. The first
step is where the Adjudicating Authority applies his mind to the show
59/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
cause notice issued and the objections received to the show cause
notice from the noticee. The second step is at the stage of forming an
opinion to proceed further by issuing a show cause notice and
conducting a personal hearing. It will be relevant to take note of the
views expressed by this Court on the need for assigning reasons at the
stage of forming an opinion.
49. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Natwar Singh, held
that the Adjudicating Authority is required to form an opinion as to
whether an inquiry is necessary to be held into the allegations of
contravention and it is only then the real and substantial inquiry into
the allegations of contravention begins.
50. V.Ramasubramanian,J (as he then was), in the case of
Ramakrishna Setty, held as follows :
“9. A careful look at the provisions of Sub-
Rules (1) to (12) of Rule 4 would show that the
enquiry by the respondent, comprises of five
stages, which are as follows:-
‘1. The issue of show cause notice of a
duration of not less than ten days, calling upon the60/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025person to show cause as to why an enquiry should
not be held for any contravention.
2. The issue of a notice fixing the date for
the appearance of the person, if after considering
the cause shown by the person to the show cause
notice, the adjudicating authority is of the opinion
that an enquiry should be held.
3. The explanation by the adjudicating
authority in person, either to the noticee or to his
authorised representative, the contravention
committed by the noticee with reference to the
provisions of the Act or the Rules or the
Regulations.
4. Giving of an opportunity to the noticee to
produce such documents or evidence and the
summoning and enforcing of the attendance of any
person.
5. Passing of the orders.’
10. Therefore, the scheme of Section 4
actually provides opportunities at the every stage
to the noticee. The forming of an opinion at the
stage of show cause notice and receipt of reply, as
provided in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4, is almost akin
to the forming of an opinion by a disciplinary
authority to hold or not an enquiry, upon receipt of
a reply to a charge memo in a disciplinary
proceeding. Therefore, I do not think that there is
any scope for expanding Rule 4(3) to mean that61/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025the forming of the opinion as required in Rule 4(3)
has to be reflected by an order in writing
containing reasons. The interpretation given by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to the
expression opinion appears to be very elastic.
11. Be that as it may, the petitioner had
allowed several things to pass before he came up
with the above writ petition. When the petitioner
came up with the above writ petition, the stage of
Rule 4(3) had already been passed. The enquiry
had actually come, at the time when the petitioner
moved this Court to the stage of Rule 4(8).
Therefore, it is not possible now to put the clock
back or rewind the proceedings back to the stage
of Rule 4(3).”
51. The above judgment was once again considered by a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. wherein it has
been held as follows :
“26. We find ourselves in complete
agreement with the views of the learned Single
Judge in Ramakrishna Settu Vs. The Special
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Southern
Region, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-600006 case cited
supra. We are unable to persuade ourselves to
agree with the decisions of the Bombay High Court62/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025inasmuch as they read into the provision, the
requirement which is not contemplated under the
Rules. We are therefore of the view that the
adjudicating Authority is not under any statutory
obligation to communicate his reasons for forming
an opinion to conduct an enquiry under Sub-Rule 3
of Rule 4 of Foreign Exchange Management
(Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules,
2000. We may draw an analogy with the provisions
of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Section 5(1) of the said Act as amended by the
Amendment Act, 2012 reads as follows:
‘(1) Where the Director or any other officer
not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised
by the Director for the purpose of this Section, has
reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be
recorded in writing) on the basis of material in his
possession, that’
27. Whenever a statute requires a particular
thing to be done in a particular manner, it is a trite
position of law that it should be done in that
manner alone and not otherwise. The provisions of
Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 in contra distinction to the
provisions of the Section 5(1) of the Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act, 2002, do not require the
reasons to be recorded in writing. If we are to read
into the provision, such a requirement, the same,
in our considered opinion, would lead to disastrous63/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025results, where notices under various enactments
which provide for enquiry on the basis of a
subjective satisfaction of the adjudicating Authority
or the enquiry officer or the Disciplinary Authority
would take a stand that those Authorities should
also record their reasons for forming an opinion
and communicate the same.”
52. It is also relevant to take note of another order passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court (S.M.Subramaniam,J) in the case
of Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [W.P.No.374 of
2024 dated 30.4.2024]. The said case arose out of a challenge to
the formation of opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. While
dealing with the same, the learned Single Judge took into account the
above two decisions of this Court and held as follows :
“16. Let us examine the spirit and intent of
Rule 4(3). On issuance of show cause notice by the
adjudicating authority along with the materials
relating to contraventions and on receipt of the
explanations from the persons/addressee, the
adjudicating authority under Rule 4(3) has to
consider the cause if any shown by such person.
That would indicate that the explanation submitted
is to be considered. On such consideration, if the64/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025adjudicating authority is of an opinion that an
enquiry should be held, then he shall issue notice.
Therefore, the opinion under Rule 4(3) is to be
construed as personal satisfaction of the authority
to proceed further and such personal opinion
formed by the adjudicating authority must be
recorded in the file so as to ensure that further
proceedings are not continued without considering
the explanations and the materials available on
record. In other words, the show cause notice
issued relating to contraventions explanations
submitted by the addressee are considered
together and an opinion is formed for the purpose
of conducting an enquiry.
17. A question arises as to mere forming of
an opinion would be a ground to penalize a person.
It is an opinion which is to be construed as prima
facie for the purpose of proceeding with the
hearing opportunity and such an opinion formed,
even as per the Bombay High Court judgement, is
not appealable and would not provide any cause
for challenging the said opinion. When such an
opinion of the adjudicating authority is not
appealable and not challengeable, then
communicating the same would be a futile exercise
because the persons were already intimated about
the contraventions and they have submitted their
explanations at the first instance and further65/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025defence would arise only on commencement of
enquiry proceedings by the adjudicating authority.
Therefore, the scope of Rule 4(3) cannot be
expanded unnecessarily so as to provide an
additional cause by intimating the opinion formed
by the adjudicating authority to proceed with the
personal hearing.
18. On forming of an opinion under Rule
4(3), the adjudicating authority shall issue a notice
fixing a date for the appearance of the person,
either personally or through his legal practitioner.
Therefore, the opinion is the point, where the
enquiry commences and such an opinion formed
would not be a ground to penalize a person. The
opinion is formed by the adjudicating authority to
proceed with the personal hearing and not for any
other purposes. Therefore, intimating such an
opinion formed by the adjudicating authority to the
persons are unnecessary and not contemplated
under Rule 4(3). Therefore, Rule 4(3) cannot be
interpreted beyond its scope and the procedures
contemplated under Rule 4 in entirety are to be
considered holistically to understand whether a fair
opportunity has been provided to the persons or
not.
19. Rule 4(4) stipulates that “on the date
fixed, the Adjudicating Authority shall explain to
the person proceeded against or his legal66/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025practitioner or the chartered accountant, as the
case may be, the contravention, allowed to have
been committed by such person indicating the
provisions of the Act or of Rules, Regulations,
Notifications, directions or orders or any condition
subject to which an authorisation is issued by the
Reserve Bank of India in respect of which
contravention is alleged to have taken place.”
Therefore, the adjudicating authority is duty bound
to explain to the person proceeded against or his
legal practitioners about the contraventions alleged
to have been committed. Communicating the
formation of opinion and the reasons will be
informed to the person or his legal representative
by the adjudicating authority under Rule 4(4) of
the Rule. On receipt of such materials from the
adjudicating authority on the hearing date the
person concerned is at liberty to defend his/her
case by following the procedures as contemplated
under Rule 4(5) to 4(12) of the Rules.
20. When Rule 4(4) unambiguously
contemplates that the reason for proceeding with
the adjudication must be informed to the persons
or to the legal practitioners or to the Chartered
Accountants and the such information should be
provided along with the allegations and the
provisions of the Act and Rules. The said Rules
contemplates providing of information to the67/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025persons and therefore, Rule 4(3) cannot be
construed as violating the Rules of Natural Justice
or contravening any of the provisions of law. Rule
4(3) and Rule 4(4) should be read constructively
so as to understand that a fair opportunity has
been provided. Communicating the opinion of the
adjudicating authority under Rule 4(3) may not be
required since the adjudicating authority is bound
to provide all such information along with the
provisions under Rule 4(4) of the Rules. Therefore,
Rule 4(3) cannot be read in isolation and it is to be
read along with Rule 4(4) for constructively
interpreting the procedures so as to ensure that
fair opportunity has been provided under the Rules
and the Rules of Natural Justice has been complied
with.
21. Though this Court had an opportunity to
consider the Bombay High Court Judgement relied
on by the Delhi High Court and the Kolkata High
Court, the later judgement of the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court is more relevant with
reference to the spirit of Rule 4 in entirety
including Rule 4(3). The scope of rules/procedures
cannot be expanded by the High Court in exercise
of the powers of the judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The procedures,
as contemplated under the Rules, are to be read as
it is and any expansion providing additional68/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025opportunity, would undoubtedly cause prejudice to
any one of the parties and would provide further
cause for the purpose of prolonging and protracting
the proceedings. The practice of prolonging and
protracting the enquiry proceedings by
approaching the High Court at each stage cannot
be appreciated. Once the proceedings are
commenced, the adjudicating authorities are
expected to follow the procedures scrupulously and
the persons concerned are bound to cooperate and
defend their case by availing the opportunities to
be provided in accordance with the Rules in force.
22. In view of the fact that the judgement of
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the
case of India Cements Limited cited supra, is the
latest judgement, wherein the interpretation of
Rule 4(3) offered by the Bombay High Court was
considered, this Court is bound by the decision of
the Division Bench of High Court of Madras.
23. When the interpretation offered by the
Bombay High Court in Shashank Vyankatesh
Monohar case has not been followed by the
Division Bench of Madras High Court, the validity of
the circular lapses automatically. Therefore, the
Enforcement Directorate has to issue suitable
orders cancelling the circular.”
69/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
53. A combined reading of the above three decisions of this
Court on the scope of challenging an opinion arrived at under Rule
4(3) of the FEMA Rules is consistent and hence, it will be a binding
precedent for this Court while dealing with the same issue in these writ
petitions.
54. This Court, in no uncertain terms, held that the provisions of
Sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 of the FEMA Rules do not require
reasons to be recorded in writing for forming an opinion. The only
consequence that falls out of the decisions of this Court is that such
forming of opinion under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules is the starting
stage for proceeding further with the adjudication and that the reason
that impelled the Adjudicating Authority to form such an opinion
cannot be a subject matter of challenge in a writ petition. All the above
three decisions of this Court took note of the First Bench judgment of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Shashank Vyankatesh
Manohar.
55. The First Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of
Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar, held as follows :
70/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025“21. Thus, in view of the above discussion,
we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority after
issuing show cause notice and receiving objections
to the notice from the noticee, is required to apply
his mind to the objections by recording his reasons
for forming an opinion on the file. This exercise
need not be preceded by personal hearing and the
order to be passed on the objections is not
required to be detailed order, but it must disclose
some link with the objections raised by the noticee
and the opinion formed by the Adjudicating
Authority. This recording of the opinion of the
Adjudicating Authority would be given to the
noticee when the proceedings are dropped in the
form of an order. However, in cases where the
opinion is formed to proceed further with the show
cause notice, then a notice for personal hearing is
required to be given to the party in terms of Rule 4
of the Adjudication Rules. However, if on receipt of
the notice for personal hearing, the recorded
reasons are sought for by the noticee, the same
should be given. However, this recording of
reasons is not an appealable order but it would
give the noticee a chance during adjudication
proceedings to meet the reasons which led the
Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion that he
must proceed further with the inquiry against
noticee. This would only result in fair procedure71/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025which would be in consonance not only with Rule 4
of the Adjudication Rules but with principles of
natural justice.”
56. The First Bench of the Bombay High Court has taken a
different view and it was held that the Adjudicating Authority must
apply his mind to the objections given by the noticee to the show
cause notice and record his reasons to proceed further and such
recorded reasons should be furnished to the noticee. The First Bench
also made it clear that such recording of reasons will give the noticee a
chance during the adjudication proceedings to meet the reasons, which
led the Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion that he must proceed
further with the inquiry against the noticee.
57. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal filed
against the First Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar was dismissed on 04.7.2014 at
the stage of admission of the special leave petition and thereby it
became final. Pursuant to the above development, a technical circular
in Circular No.11/2014 dated 26.9.2014 came to be issued. On
72/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
carefully reading this circular, it is seen that a decision was taken by
the Directorate of Enforcement to comply with the First Bench
judgment of the Bombay High Court. It is in compliance of this circular,
in the instant case, the first respondent assigned reasons while
forming an opinion and the same were also furnished to the
petitioners.
58. The learned Single Judge of this Court
(S.M.Subramaniam,J), in the order dated 30.4.2024 passed in
W.P.No.374 of 2024, directed the Enforcement Directorate to cancel
the circular as lapsed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court taking a contrary view from the First Bench judgment of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar.
It is not necessary for this Court to go into the controversy as to
whether such a direction could have been issued to the Enforcement
Directorate to cancel the circular only on the ground that the Division
Bench of this Court had taken a contrary view from the First Bench
judgment of the Bombay High Court as confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court.
73/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
59. The Enactment in question is a Central Enactment and as on
date, there are conflicting views of two High Courts. Until the issue is
ultimately settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Enforcement
Directorate faces a delicate position in so far as complying with the
circular in the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned despite complying with
the same in the other States.
60. While exercising jurisdiction as a Single Judge, this Court is
bound by the consistent view that has been taken both by the Division
Bench as well as the learned Single Judges of this Court. This Court
believes that the Courts must speak in a univocal voice. As a Single
Judge, I cannot disregard the consistent view taken by this Court since
the First Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar was considered by the Division
Bench of this Court and a different view was taken.
61. In the light of the above discussions, the reasons assigned
by the first respondent before forming an opinion and the same being
furnished to the petitioners, by itself, will not create a cause of action
to question the opinion formed by the first respondent under Rule 4(3)
74/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
of the FEMA Rules. This is in view of the fact that even if reasons had
not been assigned by the first respondent, the same could not have
been questioned by the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be in a
better footing just because reasons have been assigned and informed
to them. This Court has consistently held that formation of opinion
under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules does not, per se, penalise a person
and that is only the starting point for proceeding with the adjudication
after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned.
62. The impugned notice of hearing dated 04.4.2024 contains
reasons for the first respondent to form an opinion to proceed further
with the adjudication. Since those reasons are available, this Court
thought it fit to apply its mind on the reasons available in the notice of
hearing. Apart from going through the terms of various agreements,
the first respondent has also considered the statements recorded from
the officers belonging to the authorized dealers and has, prima facie,
satisfied himself to proceed further with the adjudication after
affording an opportunity to the petitioners.
75/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
63. Two major issues that loomed large in the mind of the first
respondent are as follows :
(i) The outflow of nearly Rs.5,551 Crores that went out of the
country in terms of payment of royalty, out of which, nearly Rs.877
Crores went into the account of one of the companies that formed part
of the Xiaomi Group and the first respondent has formed an opinion
that such payments were made without getting prior approval under
Section 3 of the FEMA and that such huge payments were made on
behalf of the entities operating outside India, which formed part of the
Xiaomi Group; and
(ii) The other issue is regarding the statements made by the
officers belonging to the authorized dealers stating that the petitioners
were not willing to share the books of accounts and they were kept
secret.
64. It is not necessary for this Court to go deep into the reasons
arrived at by the first respondent while forming an opinion. This Court
only wanted to satisfy itself as to whether the first respondent had
applied his mind and formed an opinion. Prima facie, there is
application of mind on the part of the first respondent and at that
76/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
stage, since it is the commencement of the proceedings towards actual
adjudication, even a strong suspicion is enough to form an opinion. To
understand it from the stand point of view of Criminal Jurisprudence, it
is more in the nature of taking cognizance of a complaint or a police
report where strong suspicion is enough to proceed further with the
trial. In cases of this nature, the Courts must be wary while interfering
with the further proceedings since the adjudication proceedings is at
the nascent stage and only after formation of the opinion, the noticees
are provided with an opportunity of personal hearing to defend
themselves.
65. In the light of the above findings, the reliance placed by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra
Kumar Pandey, which talks about the scope of formation of an
opinion and the interference thereto, cannot be applied in this case.
Similarly, the reliance placed by him on the scope and the meaning of
the word ‘affiliate’, the understanding of the concept of group of
companies doctrine, the interpretation of commercial contracts and the
decisions taken on commercial expediencies, the extent, to which, an
77/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
Adjudicating Authority can tinker upon the same and the scope of
mandatory requirement of payment of royalty even for entities outside
India under the Patents Act, need not be dealt with by this Court since
those are matters, which have to be agitated before the first
respondent during the adjudication proceedings by way of defence.
66. The upshot of the above discussions is that this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the opinion formed by the first respondent
under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules. It is not necessary for this Court to
render a finding on the related issues covered under Issue No.3.
Issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.
Issue No.4 :
67. This Court will now move on to the last issue on the request
made by the petitioners for furnishing copies of all the documents
including the non RUDs.
68. At the time of forming an opinion, what is required for the
first respondent is to apply his mind on the show cause notice issued,
the documents relied upon therein and the reply given by the other
78/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
noticees to the show cause notice. At this stage, the first respondent
does not apply his mind on all conceivable documents falling under the
category of the RUDs and the non RUDs. Therefore, no prejudice will
be caused to the petitioners if all the documents sought for by them
are not furnished at this stage. This is in view of the fact that the
petitioners have not entered the defence stage till the proceedings
reach the stage under Rule 4(4) of the FEMA Rules.
69. All the judgments pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners including the judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia and Sarla Gupta talk about
the stage, at which, even the documents, which are not relied upon,
must be furnished to the accused person. This is because of the reason
that there may be exculpatory materials, which are in favour of the
accused persons and the same will enable the accused persons to
defend themselves in the case effectively. In none of the judgments,
there is insistence for furnishing of the documents, even those, which
were not relied upon at the stage under Section 207 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Hence, the petitioners have the right of receiving
even those materials, which were not relied upon, but not at the stage
79/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
of forming an opinion and they will reach that stage only after they
receive the notice of hearing and they are heard by the first
respondent in the proceedings under the FEMA. That is where the
noticee enters upon the defence.
70. On 07.10.2024, the petitioners filed three applications before
the first respondent for inspection of the entire record of investigation
and to provide copies of all documents. Out of those three applications,
two were allowed and the second respondent was directed to facilitate
inspection of the entire record of investigation. He was also directed to
furnish the specified documents sought for by the petitioners.
However, no decision was taken regarding the copies of the reply
given by the other noticees to the show cause notice and the
documents submitted by them. The further grievance on the side of
the petitioners is that many pages were missing and that the specified
documents were not available citing administrative reasons.
71. In the considered view of this Court, the case has now
reached the stage under Rule 4(4) of the FEMA Rules, which is the
stage of defence and therefore, the petitioners will be entitled to all the
80/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
documents sought for by them including the non RUDs. Only if those
documents are furnished to the petitioners, they will be able to
effectively defend themselves during the adjudication proceedings.
Hence, the missing documents from the entire record of investigation
shall also be traced and furnished to the petitioners. Issue No.4 is
answered accordingly.
RESULT :
72. For the foregoing reasons,
(i) W.P.Nos.6498 and 7290 of 2025 are disposed of in the above
terms. Consequently, all connected pending WMPs are closed.
(ii) W.P.Nos.15996 and 15998 to 16002 of 2024 are dismissed.
Consequently, all connected pending WMPs are dismissed.
No costs.
25.6.2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
RS
81/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998 to 16002
of 2024 & 6948 & 7290 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
To
1.The Adjudicating Authority,
Special Director (SR), Directorate
of Enforcement, Southern
Regional Office, Chennai
Shastri Bhavan, III Floor,
III Block, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore Zonal Office, III Floor,
B Block, BMTC, Shanthi Nagar
TTMC, KH Road, Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru-560027.
WP.Nos.15996 & 15998
to 16002 of 2024 &
& 6948 & 7290 of 2025
all connected pending WMPs
25.6.2025
82/82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 02:31:24 pm )