Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Sobhagmal Sowcar(Died) – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of properties forfeited (Para 5) |
| 2. business history of petitioner (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioner's claims on property acquisition (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. citing previous judgments (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. competent authority's findings (Para 17) |
| 6. burden of proof under safema (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed (Para 25) |
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.)
Under assail is the order dated 12.07.1999 passed in FPA.18/MDS/96 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.
2. The unsuccessful appellant before the Appellate Tribunal have preferred the present writ petition.
3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the writ petitioner died. Thereafter, his Legal Representatives were substituted.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was characterised as a person affected on the basis of that he was detained under the COFEPOSA Act during Emergency time in the year 1975. At that time, due to suspension of the fundamental rights, the petitioner had no remedy of challenging the said detention. A notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued 31.3.1976 by the competent aut
The burden of proof under SAFEMA lies with the affected person, and failure to discharge this burden justifies property forfeiture.
The burden of proof lies on the affected person to establish the legality of property acquisition in forfeiture proceedings under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
The burden of proof lies on individuals affected by forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA to establish legitimate sources of income for property acquisition.
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 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.
Forfeiture of property where major part of investment remains unexplained, is justified.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming acquisition legality under SAFEMA, which failure to discharge results in forfeiture of properties.
The Appellate Authority must reconsider the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA, ensuring the petitioners can present evidence of legal acquisition.
A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.
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
