9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property,) Act, 1976 (hereafter the "Act"). A notice under section 6(1) of the Act dated August 29, 1979, was issued to him in relation to the following items of property directing him to indicate the source of his income, earnings or assets by means of which he had acquired the same : (1) " Survey No. 104/1 and 2--Keezhakadu Village (Keeladu Village) (84 cents) (wet lands) purchased on May 14, 1972, for Rs. 8,820 and after adding expenses, the investment came to Rs. 9,751 ; (2) Survey No. 18/1 of Pudukottagam Village (1.32 acres) (dry lands) purchased on July 20, 1972 for Rs. 8,000 and after adding expenses, total investment came to Rs. 8,833.50 ; and (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Competent Authority is bad because Sethuraman was a minor in 1979 when notice under section 6(2) was issued to him and his natural guardian refused to accept the same. The refusal of the registered notice sent to Kalyanasundaram as natural guardian of his minor son, Sethuraman, did not amount to proper service on the minor. The Competent Authority thus passed the impugned order without issuing a notice under section 6(2) of the Act to Sethuraman, minor, whose interests have been prejudicially affected. The order of the Competent Authority is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground alone : The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants must prevail. Sethuraman was admittedly it minor in 1979 when notice unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper, decided to proceed ex parte against Sethuraman, minor. It is clear that the ex parte proceedings had been taken against, Sethuraman, minor, and not against Kalyanasundaram who had been appearing before the Competent Authority. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether the Competent Authority was justified in proceeding ex parte against Sethuraman, minor. The obvious answer to this query is that the Competent Authority could not proceed ex parte against Sethuraman, minor and, in the event of his natural guardian having refused to accept the registered notice, it was incumbent upon him to make appropriate arrangements for proper representation on behalf of the minor. If nothing else, the Competent Authority should have appoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
