SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Domnic Alex Fernandes (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2009
Decided On : 17-08-2017
(1993) 1 SCC 78; (1994) 5 SCC 54; (2002) 4 SCC 134; (2003) 7 SCC 436; (2007) 2 SCC 510; (2008) 14 SCC 186; (2016) 3 SCC 762 – Relied upon
2002 (2) MhLJ 290 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
One Krishna Budha Gawde was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by the Government of Maharashtra. As his detention was confirmed by the Advisory Board, he was covered by Section 2(b) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).
Notice of forfeiture was issued under Section 6 of the Act in respect of several properties including the property which is subject matter of present proceeding.
The competent authority passed an order under Section 7 of the Act holding the property in question to be liable to be forfeited. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property on 2nd April, 1997 in respect of the said property.
The appellants herein filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction that order of forfeiture passed against Krishna Budha Gawde could not operate against them as they are bona fide tenants. Prior to 1965, the original owner of the property sold the property to Krishna Budha Gawde. The new landlord - Gawde reconstructed the structure in the year 1972 and the appellants were put in possession thereof and were paying rent to the new owner under the Bombay Rent Act. They were not aware of proceedings under SAFEMA and COFEPOSA against the landlord. They informed the competent authority about this.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the tenancy did not survive in view of Section 7(3) of SAFEMA.
Finding of the Court:
Forfeiture of the property will not automatically extinguish rights of the bona fide tenant.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against Order dated 11th July, 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1088 of 1995.
2. The question for consideration is whether tenancy of a property, ownership of which is acquired by a person to whom the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) applies, will be treated as "illegally acquired property" within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA and can be subjected to forfeiture under the provisions thereof.
3. Facts giving rise to the issue may be briefly stated. Vide order dated 19th January, 1974 one Krishna Budha Gawde was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by the Government of Maharashtra. As his detention was confirmed by the Advisory Board, he was covered by Section 2(b) of SAFEMA [Application.-(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the persons specified in sub-section (2).
(2) The persons referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:-
XXX XXX XXX
(b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974):
XXX XXX XXX
(c) every person who is a relative of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b);
(d) every associate of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b);
(e) any holder (hereafter in this clause referred to as the present holder) of any property which was at any time previously held by a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unless the present holder or, as the case may be, anyone who held such property after such person and before the present holder, is or was a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration.
XXX XXX XXX
Explanation 2.-For the purposes of clause (c), "relative", in relation to a person, means-
(i) spouse of the person;
(ii) brother or sister of the person;
(iii) brother or sister of the spouse of the person;
(iv) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the person;
(v) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the person;
(vi) spouse of a person referred to in clause (ii), clause (iii) clause (iv) or clause (v);
(vii) any lineal descendant of a person referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii).
Explanation 3.-For the purposes of clause (d), "associate", in relation to a person, means-
(i) any individual who had been or is residing in the residential premises (including outhouses) of such person;
(ii) any individual who had been or is managing the affairs or keeping the accounts of such person;
(iii) any association of persons, body of individuals, partnership firm, or private company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), of which such person had been or is a member, partner or director;
(iv) any individual who had been or is a member, partner or director of an association of persons, body of individuals, partnership firm or private company referred to in clause (iii) at any time when such person had been or is a member, partner or director of such association, body, partnership firm or private company;
(v) any person who had been or is managing the affairs, or keeping the accounts, of an association of persons, body of individuals, partnership firm or private company referred to in clause (iii);
(vi) the trustee of any trust, where, -
(a) the trust has been created by such person; or
(b) the value of the assets contributed by such person (including the value of the assets, if any, contributed by him earlier) to the trust amounts, on the date on which the contribution is made, to not less than twenty per cent. of the value of the assets of the trust on that date;
(vii) where the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that any properties of such person are held on his behalf by any other person, such other person.
Explanation 4.- For the avoidance of doubt,
Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas
State of West Bengal v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd.
Fatima Mohd. Amin (Smt.) (Dead) through LRs. v. Union of India
P.P. Abdulla v. Competent Authority
Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.