Section 15. Competent authority and Appellate Tribunal to have powers of civil court
The competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence or affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
Judgements applying section 15
SAFEMA 1976 forfeiture; Section 6(1) show-cause notice dated 18.02.1986; Section 7(1) ex parte forfeiture order dated 16.12.1996; Section 8 burden of proof on affected person and legal heirs; COFEPOSA detention order 20.12.1974; MISA detention;
DismissedOpenPetitioners challenged a SAFEMA authority's letter to the Sub-Registrar creating an encumbrance on property originally belonging to a COFEPOSA detenu. No forfeiture order under Section 7 had been passed despite notices in 2004 and 2006 and a 13-year lapse.
AllowedOpenIn a writ petition, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Competent Authority's challenge to a Tribunal order releasing a property from forfeiture, finding the Authority acted arbitrarily by reopening a case after twelve years without evidence linking the respondent to a benami transaction.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2010 Vinod Kumar Agarwal. ..Petitioner. Versus The Competent Authority and and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Sesha Gopalan for the Petitioner. Ms. Rebecca G
AllowedOpenSAFEMA forfeiture of a detenu’s mother’s house and deposit was challenged on proof of independent sources. The Court held that she had discharged her evidentiary burden and that suspicion could not displace documentary evidence. It allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s order without further remand.
AllowedOpenHigh Court quashed appellate tribunal judgments forfeiting property under SAFEMA. Court held violations of natural justice occurred as final judgments were delivered by three members who had not heard the merits, which were heard by only two members.
DisposedOpen