9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued a notice under section 6(1) of the Act on May 30, 1990, with respect to the following item of property : "Right, title and interest in House No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur." After completion of enquiry and trial, the Competent Authority, New Delhi, vide his order dated December 10, 1990, forfeited the house detailed above as also the business carried on by the appellant under the name "Kusum Bartan Bhandar", Katni. It is against this order that the present appeal is directed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Competent Authority has wrongly held that the appellant is the owner of the entire house No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur, whereas she had purchased only a part of it for Rs. 40,000, vide sale deed dated Decemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 6(1) of the Act with respect to house No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur, in the name of Kusumbai Jain, the appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant owns only a part of house No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur, the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to forfeit the entire house including the part owned by the other Kusumbai Jain, daughter of Amritlal Jain. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that Nirmal Kumar Jain, husband of the appellant, and his brother, Rajinder Kumar Jain, had made an oral family arrangement on June 20, 1988, according to which the latter got the share of the appellant in house No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur, and in return the former got the share of Rajinder Kumar-Jain in a house in Katni. In pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under section 6 of the Act is issued, is to be treated as null and void. This provision has no application in the instant case, because the alleged relinquishment had been made by the appellant in favour of Rajinder Kumar Jain in 1988 whereas the notice under section 6(1) was issued to the appellant on May 30, 1990. Assuming for the sake of argument that the relinquishment had been validly made by the appellant in favour of Rajinder Kumar Jain, the latter may be liable to be treated as an affected person in terms of section 2(2)(e) of the Act unless he proves that he is a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration. This again is an issue which can be appropriately adjudicated upon by the Competent Authority after hearing Rajinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
