TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 1 does not dispute the fact, that the detention order quashed by the Delhi High Court has attained finality, inasmuch as, the Apex Court has confirmed the quashing of the detention order passed by the Delhi High Court. Also does not dispute that in view of the aforesaid, the attachment of the properties under SAFEMA, will not survive. ORDER - The impugned order passed by the Competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 State. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 3rd February 2000 passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 7 and 19 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, ( SAFEMA ) as well as the order dated 21st September 2001 passed by the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners submitted that the detention order having been quashed, the SAFEMA proceedings will not be maintainable and as such, it is incumbent for the SAFEMA authorities to return the property. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 3rd February 2000 passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 7 and 19 of the SAFEMA as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 21st September 2001 passed by the ATFP, are quashed and set aside; (ii) The SAFEMA authorities to release the attachments and handover the monies attached by them to the petitioners, at the earliest and in any event within four weeks from today; (iii) The respondent-SAFEMA to handover the monies as mentioned on page 59, paragraph-(iv) of the affidavit of the Inspecting Officer, SAFEMA/NDPSA, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
