Disposed

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014 of Nitin Bhanushali & Others v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

ATFP5 Dec 2017FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the non-compliance of a Supreme Court order in Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2010. The SC had ordered remittance of sale proceeds of forfeited properties to the Respondent No. 1 after her acquittal. The Tribunal directed the respondent to comply with the order immediately.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to comply with the Supreme Court's order to remit sale proceeds to the respondent.

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014 of Nitin Bhanushali & Others v/s The Competent… — Narcotics (NDPS) | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014

¶3

Nitin Bhanushali & Others … Appellants/Applicants Versus The Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Shreyas Gachche, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R. N. D’ Souza, Joint Commissioner Mr. Ratnessh Srivastava, Inspecting Officer

¶6

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 05.12.2017

¶8

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014

¶9

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 07^th December, 2016 has passed the following order filed by the Union of India against the appellants (Neeta Nitin Bhanushali & Ors.) which reads as under:

¶10

“ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶11

CRIMINIAL APPEAL NO(S). 1607/2010

¶12

UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S)

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

NEETA NITIN BHANUSHALI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Admitted facts are that after the conviction of the husband of respondent no. 1, action was initiated qua certain properties belonging to respondent no.1 under the provision of Section 68A to 68I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and order was passed for forfeiture of the following immovable properties:

¶17

1. Flat No. 801, Building No. 6, J-K Wing, Neelam Co-op. Reusing Society Gavanpada in the name of Mrs. Neeta Nitin Bhanushali, admeasuring 1685 sq. ft. in area;

¶18

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

2. Flat No. 703, „A‟ Wing, Bldg. No. 3, Neelam CHS Gavanpada, Mulund (E), Mumbai admeasuring 888.79 sq. ft. in the name of Neeta N. Bhanushali;

¶21

3. Flat No.601, Bldg. No. 8, „D‟ Wing, Neelam Nagar Co-op. Society Gavanpada, Mulund (E), Mumbai admeasuring 550 sq. ft. in the possession of Smt. Neeta N. Bhanushali;

¶22

4. Shop No. 7, known as Pooja Dairy in Bldg. No. 7 Neelam Nagar, Gavanpada, admeasuring about 400 sq. ft. in the name of Neeta N. Bhanushali;

¶23

5. Shop No. 2, known as Shivanand Dairy in Shrinivas Bldg; M.G. Road, Chatkopar (E), admeasuring about 400 sq. ft.

¶24

It is also an admitted fact that husband of respondent no. 1 had filed an appeal against the conviction in the High Court and the High Court allowed the said appeal returning the verdict of acquittal. This judgment has attained finality. Because of this reason alone, the action taken under the aforesaid provisions for forfeiture of the properties is rendered illegal.

¶25

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court rightly allowed the writ petition of respondent no. 1 filed against the forfeiture of her properties, though this order was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeiture Property. However, we find that the High Court has directed to give physical possession of these properties to respondent no. 1. We are informed that the properties have been sold. In view thereof, direction to physically return the properties to respondent no. 1 is modified and it is substituted with the direction that the money which was realized from the sale of these properties shall be remitted to respondent no.1.

¶26

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

We make it clear that in so far as properties belonging to respondent no. 4 are concerned, no order to that effect is passed and since this appeal was admitted only in respect of the properties belonging to respondent no. 1, the aforesaid order is limited to the properties which belong to respondent no. 1.”

¶28

It is evident from the order that the relief was granted to the Respondent No. 1. From time to time the request was made to the respondent to remit the amount to the Respondent No. 1, however, about one year has passed, the said order of the Supreme Court of India has not been complied with. Joint Commissioner, SAFEMA/NDPS, Mumbai has written a letter dated 15^th November, 2017 to the Under Secretary (CA Cell), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, Room No. 51-II, New Delhi- 110001 by giving the proposal to file the Review Petition. When it was pointed out to the Joint FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014 Page 2 of 3

¶29

Commissioner, SAFEMA/NDPS, Mumbai why Supreme Court’s Order has not been complied with, he has informed us that the Review may be filed by the Union of India as suggested in his letter dated 15^th November, 2017. We are of the view that since the review has not been filed so far, the suggestion is given after 11 months for filing the review petition, there is no valid justification on the part of the respondent not to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶30

List this matter on 09^th January, 2018.

¶31

Copy of the Order be sent to the Registrar of the Supreme Court who may keep our order in the file of the Criminal Appeal No(s). 1607/2010.

¶32

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

(Anand Kishore)

Member

New Delhi,

05^th December, 2017

¶37

‘AS’

¶38

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014

¶39

Page 3 of 3

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014 of Nitin Bhanushali & Others v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-ND-21/BOM/2014 of Nitin Bhanushali & Others v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases