9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that the version of the Respondents that, the proceedings were pursued after getting approval in terms of sub-Section 3 of Section 24 is established by the Respondents and as such, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. It stands dismissed. Respondents referred to the wild allegations levelled against the authorities/department, particularly, under paragraph 9.6 of the writ petition alleging 'corruption', without producing any material to substantiate it - no materials have been produced from the part of the Appellant in support of the allegations levelled against the Respondents therein. Reckless allegations, when raised without testing the correctness, are liable to be acted upon seriously. However, because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings under the Act. Both the writ Petitioner as well as the 5th Respondent could appear before the authorities and can put forward their defence and establish that the property cannot be termed as a Benami property. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 05.02.2020, Shri Sarfaraz Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out that, there is a legal infirmity insofar as no proper approval in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act was obtained. It was accordingly, that we passed an order on that day, in the following terms: The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the challenge against Annexure-P/1 order dated 04.12.2019 passed under Section 24(3) of the Prohibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988. The learned counsel for the Department seeks for time to get instructions and to produce copy of the approval in terms of subsection (3) of Section 24 of the Act, 1988 or to produce the file to substantiate the facts and figures. Post on 10.02.2020. 5. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 05.02.2020, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that, the approval was obtained as discernible from the materials already brought on record. But on pointing out that, the approval mentioned in the proceedings already brought on record, referred only to the provisions of Section 23 and that, that approval envisaged under Section 24(3) was something else, time was sought for to get instructions and to place t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
