Disposed

FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002 of Siraj Khan v/s The Competent Authority, Lucknow

ATFP21 Nov 2016FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property adjudged on constitutional grounds that the appellant (Siraj Khan) violated a stay order by selling property despite being under a stay. The tribunal noted the breach as prima facie contempt of court and adjourned the matter to December 19, 2016, imposing a cost on deposition subject to non-appearing.

What did the court decide?

The matter was adjourned to 19th December, 2016, subject to, in the interest of justice, the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002 of Siraj Khan v/s The Competent Authority… — Contempt of Court | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-ND-18/LKW/2013 (Rest.) MP-ND-1/LKW/2013

¶3

¶4

FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002

¶5

Siraj Khan … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Competent Authority, Lucknow

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant : Shri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate For the respondent : Smt. Geeta Mittal, Superintendent Competent Authority CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER

¶11

ORDER 21.11.2016

¶12

MP-ND-18/LKW/2013 (Rest.), MP-ND-1/LKW/2013 & FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002

¶13

On the last date the following order was passed that:-

¶14

“ In the above matter the appellant has sold the property despite of the stay order of this Tribunal. In earlier February, 2014, time was sought on behalf of the appellant to take appropriate steps so that the transaction executed by the appellant in violation of the orders may be got cancelled and status quo ante be restored. Thereafter, it appears that the appellant is not taking any appropriate steps in this regard except that in August, 2014, further time was sought by the appellant to negotiate with the purchaser of the property for the resale to the appellant.

¶15

It appears to us that the appellant has not complied with the order of this Tribunal who is prima facie guilty to contempt.

¶16

The counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the main counsel is suffering from viral fever.

¶17

Let the counsel on record and appellant shall present on the next date of hearing for passing the appropriate orders.

¶18

List on 21^st November, 2016.”

¶19

FPA-ND-3/LKW/2002

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

Despite of the order, the appellant has not appeared today. Even the purchaser of the property is not present. No valid explanation is given by the learned counsel except a statement is made that the appellant is not well. No medical certificate produced. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because of the reason that property is to be restored which was sold despite of status quo order. It appears to us that the appellant is avoiding to appear and to take the necessary steps to restore the property. It is a very serious matter i.e. the breach of order. The learned counsel for the appellant again sought adjournment. Normally, we would have passed the necessary order for issuance of non-bailable order, however, in the interest of justice the matter is adjourned to 19^th December, 2016 subject to the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

¶22

On the next date the appellant as well as the purchaser of the property shall remain present. In case of any default, the necessary order would be passed.

¶23

List on 19^th December, 2016.

¶24

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶25

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶26

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶27

New Delhi, 21^st November, 2016

¶28

‘R’

¶29

FPA-ND-25/DLI/2014

¶30

Page 2 of 2

FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002 of Siraj Khan v/s The Competent Authority, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-ND-3/LKW /2002 of Siraj Khan v/s The Competent Authority, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases