Skip to content


Rajabally Hirji Meghani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCustoms
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc petition No. 635 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1983(2)BomCR5
ActsConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 3; Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - Sections 6
AppellantRajabally Hirji Meghani
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
Appellant AdvocateRahimtoola, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.J. Joshi, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....alia, to every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the cofeposa provided that such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. the supreme court having set aside the order of detention against the petitioner under the cofeposa, the provisions of the safema can no longer apply to him.4. the notice dated 17th march, 1976 issued to the petitioner under the safema must, therefore, be quashed and the respondents restrained from in any manner acting upon it. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

S.P. Bharucha, J.

1. The petitioner was detained under provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order of the Union of India, the first respondents, dated 19th December, 1974. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 17th March, 1976, was served upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA') in respect of the property therein mentioned. On 20th May, 1977 this petition was filed to restrain the respondents from acting upon the notice under the SAFEMA.

2. On 16th December, 1982 the Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1976, set aside the detention order under the COFEPOSA passed against the petitioner.

3. SAFEMA applies, inter alia, to every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the COFEPOSA provided that such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court having set aside the order of detention against the petitioner under the COFEPOSA, the provisions of the SAFEMA can no longer apply to him.

4. The notice dated 17th March, 1976 issued to the petitioner under the SAFEMA must, therefore, be quashed and the respondents restrained from in any manner acting upon it. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //