Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
P. K. Umaiba – Appellant
Versus
Registrar, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 306/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 322 of 2014 by this Court.
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 307/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 320 of 2014 by this Court.
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 309/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 321 of 2014 by this Court.
1. Review Applications have been instituted to review the common judgment of this Court dated 19.08.2024 passed in W.A. Nos. 320 to 322 of 2014.
2. Dr. A. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Aravind Raj, learned counsel on record for the applicants made a submission that the reasons recorded for issuing supplementary notices under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 SAFEMA is improper.
3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that since the initial notic
Review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; changing counsel without consent is disapproved.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
The court clarified that the issuance of Section 6(1) notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct nexus between the detenu and properties unless they are held by relatives; mere reason....
The issuance of notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a definitive nexus between the properties and illegal activities; prima facie evidence suffices for initiating proceedings.
The issuance of a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct link between the properties and the detenu; prima facie reasoning suffices for forfeiture proceedings.
Notice under SAFEMA can be issued to relatives of the convict, not just the convict themselves, and delays in proceedings do not invalidate the actions taken.
A review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
