POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme 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