Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan And Ors vs The Competent Authority Safema/Ndps ... on 3 September, 2025
cites
Section 7 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Attorney General For India vs Amratlal Prajivandas on 12 May, 1994
12. We find that the Petitioner's reliance on the Judgment in
Amratlal Prajivandas (Supra) to claim that a holder of property is entitled to a
notice and hearing before any forfeiture order under Section 7 is passed, is
entirely misplaced. Firstly, the Judgment applies to a holder, who is a
transferee in good faith and for adequate consideration. That is not in the
present case, as held above by us. Secondly, the Judgment holds that SAFEMA
Anand 16 of 25
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Edu.Sty.& Ors on 11 December, 2012
8. Before addressing the merits, we note that the Petitioners have
suppressed a material fact, namely, that the erstwhile owners, Abdul Razak
Memon and Hanifa Memon, had already challenged the Impugned Order
before the Appellate Tribunal as well as before this Court. The Appellate
Tribunal rejected their challenge on merits, and a further challenge by one of
the other member of Memon family by way of Criminal Writ Petition before
this Court was dismissed for want of prosecution. The defences raised by the
Memons thus stand negatived by judicial findings, and the Impugned Order
stands confirmed. The Memons had failed to establish that the flats in question
were not illegally acquired property. In our view, this fact, being of vital
significance, ought to have been disclosed while seeking relief under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled law, as held in
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society
[(2013) 11 SCC 531] and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC
398], that a litigant, who suppressed the material facts, is not entitled to any
Anand 13 of 25