Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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"]

Latest Legal News