9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition, the appellant was not issued the notice under Section 6(1) of the Act and admittedly, there is no challenge either to the notice issued under Section 6(1) or the order of forfeiture passed under Section 7, and those proceedings have attained finality, we find there are no merits in the appeal and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. - W.A. No. 1422 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2010 - M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. and T.S. Sivagnanam, J. S/Shri A. Mohammed Ismail for R.R. Thamothararaj, for the Appellant. S/Shri J. Raja Kalifullah, Govt. Pleader, J. Ravindran and Canscious Elango, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.S. Sivagnanam, J.]. The writ petitioner is the appellant and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hit by Section 11 of the Act and no right accrues to the appellant and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. It is as against the dismissal of the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that the notice dated 10-8-1999 did not disclose any reason as to why action is taken against the property and therefore the notice is without application of mind. Further, the learned counsel would submit that in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the first respondent did not mention as to on what date the notice dated 4-11-1993, issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, was served on the third respondent and without service of notice on the third respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the person to indicate the source of income, earnings, etc., and to show cause as to why, the property should not be declared to be a illegal acquired property and forfeited to the Central Government. 8. In the instant case, a notice under Section 6(1) was issued to the third respondent on 4-11-1993. It appears that there was no challenge to the said notice and the third respondent did not appear in the writ petition as well as in this appeal. Admittedly, the appellant purchased the properties much after the notice, that is on 1-2-1999 from the fourth respondent, who is said to have purchased the property from the third respondent on 6-3-1999. Prima facie such transaction is hit by Section 11 of the Act. For better appreciation, Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
