TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the parties, the appeal was dismissed in default. Subsequently, it was shown that the affected person, Chandulal Kalidas Mehta, has since died, and his widow, Smt. Ranjanaben, neither received the notice of the date of hearing nor had knowledge of the pendency of the appeal. On these facts, her application for setting aside the order of dismissal in default was allowed. Her application for substitution of herself and her two sons, was also allowed. There have been many adjournments thereafter for one reason or the other, on the request of the appellant, Smt. Ranjanaben, but the two sons have not taken any interest in spite of the notice. Eventually, it has been listed for hearing today at the Bombay camp. The appellant, Ranjanaben, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , kerosene, in the business in the name of Kirti Kumar Chandulal, valued at Rs. 5,805 as on November 11, 1977_present value not known. (3) Loans and advances in the business of Chandulal Kalidas, valued of Rs. 58,984 as per balance-sheet as on November 11, 1977. Here also, after recording a finding that the value of the assets being estimated at Rs. 1,50,000 ; the Competent Authority was of the view that only a sum of Rs. 35,000 had not come from known sources of income, and accordingly the provisions of section 9 were applied in this case ; and it was directed that in the event of Chandulal Kalidas Mehta exercising the option of paying a fine of Rs. 42,000 (i.e., one and one-fifth times of the unexplained amount), he could retain all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the properties, that were the subject-matter of the forfeiture notice, and ultimately he came to the conclusion/finding that since a portion of the assets remained unproved, it was a fit case to give the benefit of the provisions of section 9 of the SAFEMA, to the appellant. Here again, the Competent Authority did not spell out, by any speaking order or reasons, which could be expressly stated, as to which property he treated to have been explained as having been acquired by legally earned income, and what property he found to have been acquired from unexplained sources. But of the nine properties, he concluded that three properties could be considered to have, on an estimate, remained unexplained and their approximate value was Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of each property. If there were a reasoned order on proper appreciation of evidence, then it could have been possible to attribute the amount of Rs. 35,000 now held to be unexplained, to only one property, so that only one was held liable in the event of failure to pay fine, instead of all the three. Accordingly, this order is not sustainable for the reason that, besides being a non-speaking order, it is founded on wholly a subjective process of reasoning wanting acquisition of properties. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, [1995] 83 Comp Cas 804 ; AIR 1994 SC 2179, such an order against a relative, who was the detenu's brother in this case, cannot be maintained, as the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
