https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299451 Notice served on the detenu's wife and brothers under the forfeiture statute was sufficient, because Section 6(1) required notice to the person affected and Section 6(2) applied only where property was shown as held by another person on the noticee's behalf. Absence of notice to the detenu therefore did not vitiate the proceedings against the close relatives. The statute also prescribed no time limit for initiating forfeiture proceedings, so a challenge based on delay failed. As the petitioners did not establish lawful acquisition of the properties, the forfeiture orders were sustained and writ relief was declined. en-us Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:04:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299451 Notice served on the detenu's wife and brothers under the forfeiture statute was sufficient, because Section 6(1) required notice to the person affected and Section 6(2) applied only where property was shown as held by another person on the noticee's behalf. Absence of notice to the detenu therefore did not vitiate the proceedings against the close relatives. The statute also prescribed no time limit for initiating forfeiture proceedings, so a challenge based on delay failed. As the petitioners did not establish lawful acquisition of the properties, the forfeiture orders were sustained and writ relief was declined. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299451