Disposed

Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian v. Union of India Thru Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance , Dept. of Revenue and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2022WP/8157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions after the Competent Authority assured the court that it would not take further steps under SAFEMA pending the hearing and decision of stay petitions filed before the unavailable Appellate Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Competent Authority shall not take further steps till the stay petitions filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal are heard and decided.

Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian Vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

27-28.WPNo.8157-81632022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8157 OF 2022

¶5

Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8163 OF 2022

¶8

Girish Bangera & Anr. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Pranav Badheka a/w. Mr. Nirav Shroff i/b. Mr. Tushar V. Shah and Ms. Nirmala K. Vyas, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Anil C. Singh, Advocate General a/w. Mr. Aditya Thakkar and Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, Advocates for the Respondent No.1/UOI.

¶11

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶12

DATED : JULY 12, 2022

¶13

P.C.

¶14

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the respondent No.1.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, “ SAFEMA ”) against the order dated 6^th May 2022 passed by the original Authority.

¶16

1/2

¶17

Gaikwad RD

¶18

27-28.WPNo.8157-81632022.doc

¶19

However, the Tribunal is not available. The petitioners seek relief against the respondent Authority from enforcing the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the SAFEMA and taking over possession of immovable residential property in view of order passed by the Competent Authority.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the respondents has tendered across the bar the communication received by him from the Competent Authority, SAFEMA, Mumbai. The relevant part of the communication reads thus :

¶21

“Please fnd enclosed the copies of the subject Writ Petitions in which you have been appointed to defend the matter.

¶22

In this regard, it is to inform that the petitioners have already fled the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and they have availed the legal remedy available under the statute. Therefore, all the averments raised in the petitions will be considered by the tribunal.

¶23

However, considering the fact that the tribunal is not functional right now, we may make an assurance that we would not take any further step till the stay petitions are heard and decided by the tribunal and accordingly the Hon’ble Court may be pleaded to dispose of the petitions.”

¶24

In light of aforesaid communication, the apprehension of the petitioners at present stands redressed.

¶25

In light of the above, the respondent Competent Authority shall not take further steps till the stay petitions fled by the petitioners before the Tribunal are heard and decided.

¶26

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶27

The contention of the parties are kept open.

¶28

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶29

Gaikwad RD

¶30

2/2

¶31

Digitally signed by RAJU RAJUDATTATRAYAGAIKWAD DATTATRAYAGAIKWADDate:2022.07.13 15:10:59 +0530

Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian v. Union of India Thru Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance , Dept. of Revenue and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian v. Union of India Thru Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance , Dept. of Revenue and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita W/O. Kedar Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Dattatray Balaso Tengale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Anr.

Kakad Chambrs Offices and Business Premises Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Naresh Maniram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept and Ors.