9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Noreen Aderson, both being husband and wife respectively, with regard to the property situate at R.S.No.68, New R.S.No.F-2/3, measuring an extent of 0.20 cents together with a building bearing Door No.277 Lake View Road Theetukal Mullikorai Post, Ooty. 3. The agreement for sale was registered as document No.269 2011 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar - I. The total consideration fixed was a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- together with land and building along with furniture and fittings thereon. The petitioner has settled a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- on various dates till 01.03.2011. In view of the fact that the sale deed was not executed by the owner, the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contention by stating that actions were admittedly initiated against the owner of the property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 9. The subject property was attached after confirmation by the Adjudicating Authorities under Section 8 (3) of the Act. Once the Adjudicating Authorities confirmed the attachment under Section 8(3) of the Act, then the authorities are empowered to take possession of the property. In this context, the impugned order has been issued. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 10. Opportunity of hearing is contemplated both under Section 8 as well as Section 9 of the Act. Under Section 8(2) proviso claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice. Thus, valuable opportunity of defence has been denied to the petitioner and even under the principles of law such an opportunity cannot be denied. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural Justice. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in File No.ECIR/6/BZ/2012 dated 24.06.2014 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. 16. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner setting out the facts and circumstances, as well as the allegations within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
