TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erpreted by a Division Bench of the said Court in the case of 'Kesar Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2003) Supreme Court Cases 427 was recorded as is reproduced below: "The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th December, 2009 made by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 whereby the order of forfeiture of the petitioner's properties made by the competent Authority was upheld. The petitioner's only ground of challenge is that on the materials on record the Tribunal had not found it to be established that the properties ordered to be forfeited were the properties held by the petitioner on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....money provided by the convict or detenu." This matter is adjourned to be listed on next Wednesday i.e. 22nd July, 2015 for the petitioner to make submission regarding the law applicable to the challenge made in the writ petition." 2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted with reference to the decision in Kesar Devi (supra) that the facts in that case were that the competent Authority had made orders on the findings that though ostensible owner of the properties was Smt. Kesar Devi but the real owner was her husband Jagannath Sharma, the detenu. On the facts the Supreme Court in that judgment had held as follows: "12. ...In those cases where the relationship is a very remote one, the competent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amin v. Union of India' reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 436 had been referred and distinguished on facts. Relying on Fatima Mohd. (supra) Mr. Chakraborty submitted the said Court upon relying on and quoting extensively from Amratlal Prajivandas (supra) had held as follows: "7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the reasons recorded by the competent authority along with the show cause notice. We do not find any averments to the effect that the property acquired by the appellant is a benami property of her son or the same was illegally acquired from her son. 8. The contents of the said notices, even if taken at their face value do not disclose any reason warranting action against the appellant.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he smaller one which interprets the decisions of the Larger Bench because that is the interpretation of the Larger Bench by a Bench of Supreme Court and the High Court cannot make a different interpretation than the one made by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court which is binding upon it. The position, however, would be different if the subsequent Smaller Bench of the Supreme Court in ignorance of the earlier Larger Bench takes a contrary view from the one taken by the earlier Larger Bench. In that situation, the High Court is entitled to reject the view of the latter Smaller Bench of the Supreme Court as per incuriam." 13. In the case before us, the subsequent decision of a Smaller Bench in the case of Ajadi Bachao Andolan (supr....