Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Proximate Link Required for Property Attachment, Clarifies Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 17 April 2023 , the Supreme Court in a recent judgement allowed three interlocutory applications seeking vacation or modification of the order dated December 15, 2017, which resulted in the attachment of properties allegedly owned by petitioner Ritika Awasty and her husband Virkaran Awasty, on the ground that prima facie no proximate link could be established to justify the attachment of property of the relatives of the petitioner herein, or the purchaser of her property, to compensate for the defaults that may account to her or her husband

I.A. No.6484 of 2018 sought vacation/modification of the attachment order on properties allegedly owned by Mr. Virender Awasty, Mrs. Veena Awasty, and Mrs. Urmil Tewari, but which actually belonged to Ms. Ritika Awasty and/or her husband. I.A. No.10720 of 2018 sought impleadment of Mrs. Manju Awasty, owner of a property that had been attached, to enable her to file a detailed affidavit in respect of the property. I.A. No.58055 of 2021 sought vacation of the restriction on Mrs. Monica Gogia, who owned another property allegedly owned by Ms. Ritika Awasty and her husband.

The Court held that the ownership of one of the properties was not a disputed fact, and the applicants had no connection to the business dealings of the petitioners. The Court also noted that the second property was transferred to Mrs. Monica Gogia in a bona fide transaction, and there was no link between her and the petitioners' business dealings. Consequently, the Court allowed all three interlocutory applications, and de-attached the property subject to attachment in the order dated December 15, 2017.

The Court clarified that its order was only limited to the reliefs sought in the interlocutory applications and would not affect any other investigations or proceedings connected with the main matter or extradition proceedings against Ms. Ritika Awasty and/or her husband. The Court also directed that the main matter would be listed once the extradition proceedings against the petitioners reach their conclusion.

This judgement by the Supreme Court provides relief to the applicants and affirms the importance of establishing a proximate link to justify the attachment of properties.

RITIKA AWASTY vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/24-Apr-2023-RITIKA-AWASTY-Vs-State-of-UP.pdf"]

Similar News