38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
CelebStreet

Adnan Sami Slapped With 50 Lakh FEMA Penalty For Buying Mumbai Properties [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      18 September, 2019 12:09 PM      0 Comments
Adnan Sami Slapped With 50 Lakh FEMA Penalty For Buying Mumbai Properties [Read Judgment]

The Appellate Tribunal for the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) on September 12, 2019, in the case of Shri Adnan Sami Khan v. The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai has imposed a penalty of 50 lakh on singer Adnan Sami for buying eight flats in Mumbai in 2003 without prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India, when he was a Pakistani national.

Justice Manmohan Singh was hearing an appeal filed by the singer against the Enforcement Directorate Special Director's order for confiscation of the flats and five parking lots and imposition of 20 lakh in penalty.

The Tribunal, however, after hearing the matter has quashed the December 2010 order of the Special Director for confiscation of the properties. It enhanced the penalty amount from 20 lakh to 50 lakh.

Imposing the penalty, the Tribunal directed the singer to pay the amount within three months of the order. The singer had earlier deposited 10 lakh.

The impugned order is set aside as far as exercise of discretion under Section 13(2) of the Act. The finding arrived under Section 13(1) shall remain intact. Mr. Sami shall deposit the remaining 40 lakh with the respondent [ED] within three months from today. As no case under Section 13(2) (about confiscation of eight flats and five parking space)...the said findings and part of the order is quashed, said the Tribunal in its judgment.

Mr. Sami had bought the properties in the Oberoi Sky Garden Co-operative Housing Society, at Lokhandwala in Mumbai, on December 29, 2003.

The singer paid a total of 2.53 crore for the flats. He later transferred five flats to his then wife, Sabah Galadari, along with some parking spaces, but afterwards his marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court.

He was not aware that Pakistani nationals could not purchase immovable property in India, as submitted by him.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that "the flats were purchased by Indian Rupees, out of monies earned in India on which Income Tax has been paid, as well as monies loaned from India banks. The loans have been duly repaid.

It observed that Mr. Sami, after purchase of the flats, had also applied for the grant of Indian citizenship and was issued a certificate of naturalization on January 1, 2016.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email