Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
Shajahan – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case concerning property forfeiture (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments regarding property acquisition (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's findings on evidence of property ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. burden of proof under safema act (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petitions (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. Under assail is the order dated 29.11.1999 passed in FPA.No.11/MDS/96 and FPA.No.13/MDS/96 before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited property, New Delhi. The unsuccessful appellants before the Appellate Tribunal have preferred the present writ petitions before this Court.
2. The case of the petitioners' is that their father Mr.S.A.Jawersha was detained under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”]. The fundamental rights of the citizen were suspended during the emergency period. Therefore, their father was unable to challenge the detention order, while he was under detention. However, he had challenged the same after revocation of emergency:
(i) On 31.09.1976, show cause notice was issued to their father under Section 6 (1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming acquisition legality under SAFEMA, which failure to discharge results in forfeiture of properties.
The court emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements under SAFEMA for forfeiture notices, asserting that failure to provide adequate reasoning renders the notice and subsequent proceedi....
A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.
The burden of proof lies on individuals affected by forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA to establish legitimate sources of income for property acquisition.
The burden of proof lies on the affected person to establish the legality of property acquisition in forfeiture proceedings under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
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.
The absence of a clear nexus between illegal activities and property acquisition invalidates forfeiture under SAFEMA, and the burden to prove lawful acquisition lies on the appellant.
The burden of proof under SAFEMA lies with the affected person, and failure to discharge this burden justifies property forfeiture.
A bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
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
