Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
V. Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Kumbakonam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under customs act (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. detailed inquiry under safema (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. delay in initiating action (Para 9) |
| 4. validity of notice to relatives (Para 10) |
| 5. link between convict and property (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. orders confirmed (Para 31) |
ORDER :
1. The writ petition in W.P.No.1149 of 2001 has been instituted challenging the order passed by the competent authority in proceeding dated 28.05.1998 under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred as 'SAFEMA'] and the proceedings of the Appellate Tribunal for forfeiture of property passed in order dated 15.11.2000 in F.P.A.No.32/MDS/98.
2. Similarly, the writ petition in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 also filed challenging the same proceedings by one Mrs.V.Padmavathy. Since both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the same proceedings of the competent authority and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a common order has been passed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. The facts in brief reveals that one Mr.V.P.Selvaraj who is the brother of Mr.V.P.Vadivel,
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.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
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 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 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.
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 lies on individuals affected by forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA to establish legitimate sources of income for property acquisition.
A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.
The Appellate Authority must reconsider the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA, ensuring the petitioners can present evidence of legal acquisition.
A bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
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
