Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 247 (7.88 seconds)
Documents citing Attorney General For India vs Amratlal Prajivandas on 12 May, 1994

The Competent Authority vs Mohammed Thahaumma (Deceased) on 19 August, 2024

45. In the case on hand, sufficient reasons have been duly recorded. On facts, the above judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case of respondents. According to the clarification given by Constitutional Bench in Attorney General's case supra, the link or nexus is required to be mentioned only in case of relative/associate. The subsequent judgement in Kesar Devi vs. union of India cited supra was also of the same view.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

The Competent Authority vs Mohammed Thahaumma (Deceased) on 19 August, 2024

45. In the case on hand, sufficient reasons have been duly recorded. On facts, the above judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case of respondents. According to the clarification given by Constitutional Bench in Attorney General's case supra, the link or nexus is required to be mentioned only in case of relative/associate. The subsequent judgement in Kesar Devi vs. union of India cited supra was also of the same view.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Shri Ranchhodbhai Bhagwanbhai Tandel vs 1) The Competent Authority on 27 February, 2012

The learned Counsel has invited our attention to para 42, pages 449-450, of the judgment in Attorney General of India vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and Ors 1 So far as other judgments are concerned, she submitted that those judgments pertain to the properties standing in the name of relatives or any other person on behalf of detenu and, therefore, ratio of these judgments would not apply since, in the present case, property was standing in the name of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Kantilal Damodardas Shah C/O Rajkamal ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 April, 2001

4. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that Special Criminal Application No. 51 of 1975 was earlier filed by the detenu's wife challenging his detention and that petition came to be rejected by an order of this Court on 4-2-1977. The Court also took note of the fact that Special Civil Application No. 2051 of 1979 challenging the S.A.F.E.M.A. notice dated 28-4-1979 received by the petitioner on 3-5-1979 was also rejected on 9-8-1994. Special Civil Application No. 5528 of 1986 filed by him raising challenges including against his detention order was also rejected on 9-8-1994 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Pranjivandas (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - M C Patel - Full Document

Harshad P. Mehta And Others vs Competent Authority on 3 June, 1999

In this context, it is apt to quote from Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas [1995] 83 Comp Cas 804 (SC) (page 840) : "After all, all these illegally acquired properties are earned and acquired in ways illegal and corrupt - at the cost of the people and State. The State is deprived of its legitimate revenue to that extent. These properties must justly go back where they belong - to the State."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - IT Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.M. Vijayan And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 28 March, 1995

16. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the constitutional validity of old section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, under entry 54 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (corresponding to the abovesaid entry 82 of the present Constitution). Only because the Supreme Court held therein that the abovesaid provisions under the old Income-tax Act were enacted with a view to prevent evasion of income-tax, the Supreme Court held that it would fall within the abovesaid entry 54 itself and that is why there was no necessity to decide the abovesaid question whether the person can be taxed on an income of another when there is no possibility of evasion of income-tax. Anyway, in my view, in view of article 248 and entry 97 of List I and the interpretation put on it by the Supreme Court itself in the above referred to Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon [1972] 83 ITR 582 and Attorney-General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas [1995] 83 Comp Cas 804; AIR 1994 SC 2179, the abovesaid question may not actually arise in so far as the legislative competency of Parliament is concerned, though the question may have to be decided in the context of violation of any fundamental right.
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Competent Authority vs Smt. Ayisath Munawara

17. Therefore, as pointed out by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Attorney General for India and Others v. Amratlal Prajivandas and others, the Authority must make out the jurisdictional fact, namely the nexus or the link between the acquisition and the consideration, if such a link is not made out, the question of disproving or proving the contrary will not arise dehors the fact that the burden of proof is cast on the noticee by virtue of Section 8 of the Act of 13 of 1976. In order to invoke the provisions of Sections 6 and 7, the Competent Authority 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 1333 of 2018 must establish the jurisdictional fact. It should record reasons for the belief that the property would have been acquired by means of illegal earnings and that reason should disclose the nexus of the link. The mere failure to prove the source or absence of evidence to establish the source on the side of the noticee cannot by itself make the property an illegally acquired property.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Manharlal Ratilal Tailor vs Competent Authority Under Safem And ... on 7 October, 1996

7. Mr. Kaji appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 9-8-94 had been passed by the Division Bench as a common order whereby several petitions had been disposed of on the same date on the basis of the judgment, which had been rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, (AIR 1994 SC 2179) (supra) and at that time the arguments were made only on the question of the validity of the provisions of COFEPOSA and SAFEM Act and in fact the prayers against the for feiture of the property in the proceedings under SAFEM Act had not been addressed because the Supreme Court itself in Attorney General for India's case (supra) had held that SAFEM Act is directed towards forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of a person and the relatives and the associates of detenue are brought in only for the purpose of ensuring that the illegally acquired properties of the detenu, acquired or kept in their names, do not escape the net of the Act. According to Mr. Kaji it was well open for these petitioners to show and prove that the properties in question which had been acquired by them way back in the year 1971 had nothing to do with the illegal acquisition of the properties by way of any contribution from the concerned detenu and, therefore, such properties, which were acquired by the petitioners themselves without any aid from the concerned detenu, could not be forfeited. Mr. Kaji submitted that whereas this question was not decided by the Division Bench while passing the order on 9-8-94, these petitions cannot be thrown away on the principles of constructive res judicata and the right of the petitioners to seek adjudication on merit cannot be defeated.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Karimaben K. Bagad vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 1997

In fact, the earlier petition which stood transferred to Supreme Court and was decided under the title Attorney General v. Amratlal Pranjivandas, got disposed of from the Division Bench of this Court without informing this fact and the same issue has been raised by filing the present Special Civil Application. Thus, the Special Civil Application deserves to be rejected for more than one reasons.
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N N Mathur - Full Document

The Competent Authority & ... vs Manilal Jalal & Anr on 12 July, 2013

The other argument advance by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ  petitioner  was  prejudiced  in  the  course  of  oral  hearing  under  Section  7  of  SAFEMA inasmuch as he and his brothers were minors at the time of acquisition  of  the  properties  by  their  late  mother  in  1958  is  also  wholly  without  substance.  The  writ  petitioner  in  the  in  the  instant  case  did  not  participate  in  the  oral  hearing before the competent authority in spite of notice and therefore cannot be  heard  on  the  score  of  denial  of  effective  opportunity  to  defend  himself  in  violation of principles of natural justice. Notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was  served  upon  the  mother  Sarbani  Devi  Jalan.  During  her  lifetime,  she  submitted  an elaborate reply to such notice. There was no reference to any fact pertaining to  her  personal  knowledge  in  the  said  reply  relating  to  the  acquisition  of  the  properties  in  question.  Her  defence  was  wholly  based  upon  income  tax  returns  and  the  assessment  orders  passed  by  the  income  tax  authorities.  In  view  of  the  nature  of  her  defence  as  disclosed  in  her  reply  which  was  wholly  based  on  record, we are of the view that her death prior to the opportunity of oral hearing  given to her son i.e. the writ petitioner could not have prejudiced the latter in his  defence. Delay in the said proceeding therefore did not prejudice the defence of  the writ petitioner in any manner inasmuch as their defence was entirely based  on income tax returns and other documentary evidence which had already been  brought  on  record  and  considered  by  the  authorities.  The  delay  caused  in  the  SAFEMA proceeding was primarily due to the challenge thrown by Sarbani Devi  Jalan and others to the constitutionality of the law which was finally decided by  the apex Court in Attorney General for India Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas (Supra)  on  12.05.1994.  It  was  not  attributable  to  the  authorities  in  any  manner  whatsoever.  Therefore  the  manner  of  conducting  the  proceeding  in  the  instant  case  cannot  be  said  to  be  unfair,  unjust  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of  natural  justice. The principles of natural justice are not a strait‐jacketed formula. Whether  a procedure followed in a particular case achieves the benchmark of fair play and  just  opportunity  must  be  judged  on  the  touchstone  of  prejudice  of  the  factual  matrix  of  the  said  case.  The  bogey  of  denial  of  natural  justice  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  scuttle  legitimate  and  just  proceedings  when  no  prejudice  can  be  demonstrated to have been caused to the person proceeded against. Krishna Iyar,  J. (as His Lordship then was) in his inimitable style summarised the philosophy  of natural justice as follows:‐    "13.  Natural  justice  is  no  unruly  horse,  no  lurking  land  mine,  nor  a  judicial  cure‐all.  If  fairness  is  shown by the decision‐maker to the man proceeded  against,  the form,  features and the  fundamentals of  such  essential  processual  property  being  conditioned  by  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  situation,  no  breach  of  natural  justice  can  be  complained  of.  Unnatural  expansion  of  natural  justice,  without  reference  to  the  administrative  realities  and  other  factors  of  a  given  case,  can  be  exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical  but  should  be  flexible  yet  firm  in  this  jurisdiction.  No  man  shall  be  hit  below  the  belt  -  that  is  the  conscience of the matter."
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next