2001 (11) TMI 941 - HC - Companies Law

Tribunal Upholds Forfeiture Orders Under SAFEMA Despite Challenges

Amarjit Singh Versus Union of India

The Tribunal upheld orders of forfeiture under SAFEMA, determining that service was valid under section 22 of SAFEMA despite petitioners' challenges. The ... Service of notices and orders Issues:Challenge to orders of forfeiture under SAFEMA based on service of notices and orders, applicability of Code of Civil Procedure vs. SAFEMA procedures, existence of witness of affixture, refusal of service by the petitioners before the competent authority, jurisdiction of the competent authority and Tribunal.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to three writ petitions challenging orders of forfeiture under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The petitions contested the service of notices and orders under SAFEMA, arguing that the procedures prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure were not followed. The Tribunal found that the relevant procedure was under section 22 of SAFEMA, specifically clause (a) and (b) regarding service by affixture. The Tribunal concluded that the orders were validly served and dismissed the appeals due to a significant delay in filing them.2. The petitioners further contested the existence of the witness of affixture, questioning the validity of the witness's thumb impression. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the procedure followed was in accordance with the law. The petitioners' refusal to accept service and participate in the proceedings before the competent authority under SAFEMA was noted, leading to adverse findings against them.3. The competent authority's findings regarding the petitioners' refusal to respond to notices and participate in the hearings were highlighted. The refusal of service by the petitioners was considered as valid service by the competent authority. The petitioners' argument about being out of station during the notice period was countered by the fact that one of the petitioners was a director, indicating awareness of legal implications.4. The judgment emphasized that the impugned orders were legally sound, and the petitioners failed to establish any grounds for invoking the writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that such pleas should have been raised before the competent authority or the Tribunal in a timely manner. The lack of jurisdiction claim was deemed unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.5. Ultimately, the writ petitions were disposed of, and interim orders were vacated. The judgment reinforced the importance of following legal procedures and timely participation in legal proceedings, highlighting the consequences of refusal to accept service and engage in the adjudicatory process under SAFEMA.