Dismissed

FPA-7/BOM/2014 of M/s. Chetan Builders v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

ATFP8 Mar 2018FPA-7/BOM/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed four appeals filed by appellants challenging orders under SAFEMA. The Tribunal held the appeals meritless due to non-compliance with its previous order regarding deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal also rejected demands for remand, noting appellants refused to argue on merits and had failed to respond to show cause notices despite numerous opportunities.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed for non-compliance with Tribunal order dated 28.03.2017 and for lack of merits.

FPA-7/BOM/2014 of M/s. Chetan Builders v/s The Competent… — Property and Title | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (FEMA, SAFEMA, PMLA, etc.) AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 08^th March, 2018.

¶3

FPA-4/BOM/2014
AJIT BAPU SATAM	…	Appellant
FPA-5/BOM/2014
Maya Ajit Satam	…	Appellant
FPA-6/BOM/2014 Chetan Ajit Satam	…	Appellant
FPA-7/BOM/2014 M/s. Chetan Builders	…	Appellant
FPA-8/BOM/2014 M/s. Nivara Builders & Developers	…	Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority, Mumbai	…	Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Shri Sanjeev Chaudhary, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Stanly Joseph, I.O.
CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY	: MEMBER

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

FPA-4-8/BOM/2014

¶8

The Appellate Tribunal had vide its order dated 28.03.2017 granted four weeks time to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the month of September, 2014 up to date for the property at serial no. 29 namely 288-A, Laxman Niwas, Veer Samaras Road, Dadar, Mumbai and give an undertaking that the appellant would continue to deposit the said

¶9

FPA-4-8/BOM/2014

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

amount regularly on monthly basis. It further stated that if the appellant fails to do so, the interim order passed on 7^th July, 2014 with respect to the said property shall be treated as withdrawn, meaning thereby that the said property would stand forfeited to the Central Government.

¶12

During the course of final hearing on 27^th February, 2018 the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Advocate agreed that they did not comply with the said order of the Appellate Tribunal. However, instead he insisted that the impugned order dated 21.04.2014 was an exparte order and needs to be remanded back. He was asked to argue the case on merits also, but he stated that he had neither anything to say on that nor did he have any documents to defend on merits.

¶13

The learned representative of the respondent stated that there was no ground, for remand since it was they (the appellants) who had failed to reply to the show cause notice wherein a period of 35 days was given for them to submit their reply. The adjudicating authority waited for more than six months for any reply to come from the appellants but no reply was received. Thereafter, the appellants were given personal hearing on more than five occasions by the adjudicating authority. On the last date fixed for personal hearing i.e. on 26.09.2013, one of the appellants appeared for personal hearing and sought time up to 21.10.2013 to file the reply but no reply was sent whatsoever in the ensuing three months thereafter. He further stated that even after lapse of one year and 10 months, even after giving them a number of opportunities for personal hearing and even after the appellants promised to send the reply, nothing was done by the appellants. In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority had no option but to proceed on the basis of facts and documents available on record. Hence, the Learned Representative pleaded that there was no ground for remand of the matter

¶14

FPA-4-8/BOM/2014

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

and it is only a delay tactics which the appellants were adopting again and again before the Adjudicating Authority and now before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶17

I have given my careful thoughts to the case. It is a fact that they have not complied with the Appellate Tribunal’s directions dated 28.03.2017 and thus the appeals are liable to be dismissed straightway. Moreover, I also agree with the learned representative of the respondent that enough opportunities have been given to them to appear/submit the reply before the adjudicating authority which they deliberately did not avail. The appellant has refused to argue on merits of the case before me.

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant’s contention is that since they had moved the High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court for quashing of the detention order under COFEPOSA, adjudicating authority should not have proceeded under SAFEMA. I find this to be a very strange argument since SAFEMA is an independent Act and action under the Act is to be taken as per its provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India & Others ( Civil Appeal No. 772-773 of 2014) had observed as follows:-

¶19

“ Section 6 of the Act (SAFEMA) authorises the competent authority to initiate proceedings of forfeiture only if it has reasons to believe (such reasons for belief are required to be recorded in writing) that all or some of the properties of the persons to whom the Act is applicable are illegally acquired properties. The Conviction or the preventive detention contemplated under Section 2 is not the basis or cause of the confiscation but the factual basis for a rebuttable presumption to enable the State to initiate proceedings to examine whether the properties held by such persons are illegally acquired

¶20

FPA-4-8/BOM/2014

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

properties. It is notorious that people carrying on activities such as smuggling to make money are very clandestine in their activity. Direct proof is difficult if not impossible. The nature of the activity and the harm it does to the community provide a sufficiently rational basis for the legislature to make such an assumption. More particularly, Section 6 specifically stipulates the parameters which should guide the competent authority in forming an opinion.........”.

¶23

“If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved, sovereign would be perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring that persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth.”

¶24

Incidentally even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not deem it a fit case to quash the said detention under Cofeposa and dismissed it.

¶25

The appeals are therefore dismissed on (a) being devoid of merits (b) for non-compliance of this Tribunal’s order dated 28.03.2017.

¶26

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶27

New Delhi, 08^th .March, 2018. ‘K’

¶28

FPA-4-8/BOM/2014

¶29

Page 4 of 4

FPA-7/BOM/2014 of M/s. Chetan Builders v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-7/BOM/2014 of M/s. Chetan Builders v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases