Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kshitij Shailendra
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.
THE CHALLENGE
2. The petitioner, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and functioning as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), is primarily engaged in the business of financing vehicles and has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.09.2024 whereby the Commissioner/ Special Court, Acquisition of Crime Generated Property, Commissionerate of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, has rejected the representation dated 24.05.2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act, 1986'). By the said representation, prayer was made that vehicles financed by the petitioner-company to one JSR Roadlines (borrower) be released in favour of the petitioner.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. As per record, a first information report was registered against one Rajkumar under Section 2/3(1) of the Act, 1986. During the investigation proceedings, it was found that a company, namely, M/s Eskon Export
The Commissioner loses authority to decide on a representation once a reference to the competent court is made under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
An appeal against an order refusing to release attachment under Section 17 of the 1986 Act would be maintainable under Section 18 of the same Act.
The court upheld the provisional attachment of properties under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to prove lawful acquisition and the necessity of pursuing statutor....
power of the Court to hold an inquiry under section 16 on the reference made by the District Magistrate is not an empty formality, which has a purpose behind it.
The main legal point established is that property attachment under the Gangster Act requires sufficient reason to believe that the property was acquired through gangster activities, and a formal inqu....
The court emphasized that property attachment under the Gangster Act requires clear evidence linking the property to criminal activity, and failure to provide such evidence invalidates the attachment....
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
