Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the forfeiture of the appellant's properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could be sustained in respect of the agricultural land, the dharamshala and temples, the business assets, the car and insurance premiums, and the investments in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Analysis: The properties claimed as ancestral agricultural land were found to have been acquired long before the appellant's involvement, with no material to show illegal acquisition. The dharamshala and temples were supported by contemporaneous material showing public, religious and charitable ownership, and the record did not contain evidence to displace that claim. The business assets were traced to an established business carried on over many years, with earlier income-tax assessments accepting the initial capital and subsequent accretions, making it unsafe to attribute the entire business fortune to the original small investment alone. The car and insurance premiums were shown to have come from the business accounts. Only the investments in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. remained unexplained on the record.
Conclusion: The forfeiture could not be sustained for the agricultural land, dharamshala and temples, business assets, car, or insurance premiums, and could be sustained only to the limited extent of the unexplained investments in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.