9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the validity of the notices under Section 6 of the Act and the orders of forfeiture under Section 7 of the Act with reference to the facts and provisions of SAFEM Act and the decisions of this Court. Case referred back. - R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ. S/Shri Mohan Parasaran, ASG, D.K. Thakur, Krishan Kumar, Ms. Mudrika Bansal, Amarnath Saini and Shreekant N. Terdal, Advocates, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-1984, 5-11-1984, 9-11-1984, 13-11-1984, 19-11-1984 and 23-11-1984, passed by the competent Authority, under Section 7 of the SAFEM Act declaring the properties of the respondents as illegally acquired properties and forfeiting them to the Central Government. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties upheld the order of the competent authority with some modifications by order dated 20-3-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions to show cause why the matters should not be remanded to the High Court for deciding the matters with reference to Section 6 read with Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEM Act, by a reasoned order. 5. In Rajnikant R. Belekar, the High Court held that unless the direct nexus between the property which was sought to be forfeited under SAFEM Act and the income derived by way of contravention of the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 3(1)(c) of SAFEM Act; and that therefore the decision in Aslam Mohd. Merchant, was not of much assistance and this aspect was ignored by Rajnikant R. Belekar. It was submitted that Rajnikant R. Belekar was wrongly decided. It was submitted that the principles relating to SAFEM Act have been laid by this Court in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1994 (5) SCC 54, Fatima Mohame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
