Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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