SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1125

VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Thanesar Singh Sodhi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Ankur, Adv. Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Karan Bindra, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bipul Kedia, Adv. Ms. Mahesh Sharma, Adv. Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Ms. Gyanika Kochar, Adv. Mr. Neville Majra, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. Mr. S.a. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

(Vikram Nath, J.)

These two appeals challenge the impugned orders of the High Court more or less on the same and similar grounds as such have been taken up together and being decided by this common order. In Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011, challenge is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 26.03.2010 whereby Writ Petition (Civil) No.1212 of 1995 was dismissed confirming the order of forfeiture of properties under section 7 of The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 19761[SAFEMA]. In Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014, the challenge is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 03/17.12.2012 dismissing the Writ Petition No.3878 of 2011 wherein also the order of forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA was upheld.

2. Before the High Court, the main ground of challenge in both the cases was that as the detention order passed under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 19742[COFEPOSA], has been subsequently revoked/withdrawn as such SAFEMA proceedings would become non est and untenable. An additional ground taken in Civil Appeal No.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top