Section 24. Act to have overriding effect

Umrao Bai v. Competent Authority, SAFEM(FOP) Act 1976 — S.6(1) notice (21.12.1977) and S.7(1) forfeiture (12.07.1995) of Sithik Alima's 50% share (wife of COFEPOSA detenu S.A. Yaseen);

Forfeiture of partnership shares under SAFEMA was upheld against one relative who failed to establish her investment source. The connected petition was allowed because adequate notice linking the property to the detenu's illegal wealth had not been supplied.

Forfeiture of shares under SAFEMA did not authorise seizure of the company’s leasehold property, which was never subject to forfeiture proceedings. The court allowed the appeals, set aside the dismissal of the petitions, directed consideration of the property transfer and ordered refund of interim deposits,…

Appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging SAFEMA authorities' possession of a company's GIDC plot founded on forfeiture of the detenues' shares. The court held forfeiture of shares does not make the Central Government owner of the company's property;

Forfeiture of majority shareholdings under SAFEMA did not authorise taking possession of the company's leasehold property, which was never subjected to forfeiture proceedings.

Forfeiture of shareholders' shares under SAFEMA did not authorise taking possession of the company's leasehold property, which was never subjected to forfeiture proceedings.