ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by 16 petitioners to assail the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, (for short, "the Appellate Tribunal") whereby the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, ,,the Act), has dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners as being not maintainable.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they purchased small parcels of land carved out of plot No. 8 (NIT), Industrial Area, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as, ,,the plot) between the period 1992 to 1995 from the owners. The plot had been allotted to M/s Bharat Rasain Pvt. Ltd. (BRPL) by the Government of India on leasehold basis in the year 1963. The same was registered in favour of BRPL on 28.8.1963. BRPL was wholly owned subsidiary of M/s South India Carbonic Industries Ltd. (SICIL). The paid-up equity of BRPL was Rs. 3,63,000.00 consisting of 363 shares of Rs. 1,000.00 each held by SICIL. SICIL sold 359 out of 363 shares of BRPL (leaving only four shares) to M/s Lone Star Works Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ,,Lone Star) in December, 1975. It appears that the remaining shares were held by Shri Asan Dass Wahi and Shri Iqbal Singh Atwal.

(3.) PRIMARILY , the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order has proceeded on a wrong premise that a notice under Section 6 of the Act had been issued to the owner of the plot. It is argued that the registered owner/perpetual lessee of the plot was BRPL, whereas the notices under Section 6(1) of the Act had been issued to Mr. Mr. Henry H. Le. Febvre on 4.7.1980 and to Mrs. Laluhumi H. Le. Febvre on 3.2.1981 under Section 6(1) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the notices under the Act ought to have been issued to BRPL and/or to Lone Star under Section 6(2) and not only to Mr. Henry H. Le. Febvre and his wife Mrs. Laluhumi H. Le. Febvre. It is also argued that the notices issued to Lone Star, BRPL on 15.7.1980 are not a notice under Section 6(1), or under Section 6(2) of the Act. Moreover, the notices/communications issued to Lone Star and BRPL do not specify the plot as one of the properties in respect whereof they were issued. It is, therefore, argued that Section 11 did not come into play at all.