TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that the properties were legally acquired. Held that: - there was ample evidence on record to substantiate the respondent’s claim that the said properties were purchased in 1993. As opposed to the same, the Competent Authority had not produced any material that would even remotely cast a doubt as to the respondent’s claim - The Tribunal had also noted that the Competent Authority had not even discussed that the firm involved in the illegal activities were established in the year 2000 and there was no allegation that respondent was involved in any illegal activity prior to the year 2000. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.(C) 4407/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Petitioner Through: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts necessary to address the controversy involved in the present petition are as under:- 4. 1 An order of detention dated 23.10.2002 under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, was passed against the respondent. Thereafter, on 19.10.2003, the respondent was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the learned ACMM. The respondent was detained on 29.08.2003 and the said order was confirmed on the advice of the Advisory Board on 10.11.2003. 4.2 The principal allegation against the respondent was that he along with his associates, was engaged in fraudulent exports of cheap quality of automotive parts (Fuel Pump, Diaphragm) Microphones Readymade Garments under Duty Entitlement, Passbook Scheme - cum Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme DEPS cum Drawback s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial time when the said property was purchased. He further stated that his mother, who was then working with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India since the year 1962, had provided ₹15,000/- for purchase of the said properties. Respondent s mother also filed an affidavit confirming the same. 4.5 The Competent Authority rejected the respondent s contention and passed the order dated 04.03.2016 for forfeiture of the said properties principally for the reason that (i) that the documents produced by the respondent for establishing that he had purchased the said properties in 1993 photocopy of sale agreement, General Power of Attorney, Purchase Receipt, etc. were unregistered and unauthenticated; (ii) that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low:- 16. The original documents were produced by the appellant before us. The said documents, i.e. Receipt, General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and Affidavit were duly attested by the Notary on 26th March, 1993. The agreement to sell appears to be signed by two witnesses. We have also examined the back page of the stamp papers which contain the date 26th March, 1993. The photograph of Mr. O.P. Narula, who has sold the property to the appellant, is also pasted on the General Power of Attorney which is duly attested by the Notary Public. Similarly, the Agreement to Sell is apparently witnessed by the father of the appellant and the same was executed by Mr. O.P. Narula, seller and the appellant. Mr. O.P. Narula, seller has also exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 were unregistered and, therefore, the respondent had failed to prove that the properties were legally acquired. 10. This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contention. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the Tribunal had examined the relevant material including the original documents produced by the respondent as well as the affidavit executed by Mr. O.P. Narula, the seller, confirming that he had sold the property in question to the respondent and had received the full consideration for the same. Mr. Narula had also deposed that he had executed the relevant documents, namely, the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt, etc. for transfer of the property in 1993. Thus, there was ample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
