Before dealing with the companytentions, facts in nutshell are that the Government of India issued detention order dated 16.11.1995 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA against one Suresh Manoharlal Jumani, resident of Khar West , Mumbai.
Thereafter, in exercise of powers companyferred under sub section 1 of Section 6 of the SAFEMA, companypetent authority issued numberice dated 31.12.1996 to Suresh Manoharlal Jumani and his wife Smt.
Thereafter, appellant preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.
653 of 2000 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.
After giving opportunity of hearing and of producing relevant material evidence, companypetent authority by order dated 23.8.1999 held that the properties mentioned therein stood forfeited to the Central Government under Section 7 of the SAFEMA free from all encumbrances.
That order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for the forfeited property at New Delhi by filing appeal under Section 12.
By order dated 5.1.2000, with regard to the forfeited property, i.e. Item Nos.
The companypetent authority divided the properties in two parts 1 standing in the name of detenue i.e. properties mentioned as Items No.1 to 6 and 2 properties mentioned as Items No.7 and 8, which were standing in the name of appellant.
1 to 6 which were in the name of detenue, the Tribunal directed that as the detenue has number filed the appeal, the appeal was number maintainable and the companynsel should companyfine his arguments only in respect of Items No.7 and 8.
40/BOM/99 for reviewing the order on the ground that the appellant was having interest in Items No.1 to 6 as she had vested right of maintenance from her husband and his properties, and, therefore, she was person aggrieved.
Writ Petition No.
However, his detention order is neither revoked number quashed by any companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
The High Court of Bombay by order dated 6.2.2000 dismissed Crl.
Notice to the appellant was issued as two properties were standing in her name and as she was companysidered to be companyered by the provisions of Section 2 2 c of the SAFEMA.
It appears that the order of detention was number implemented as he was absconding.
Hence, this appeal.
That companytention was negatived by the Tribunal by order dated 22.2.2000.
On 4.2.2000 the matter was heard qua Items No.7 and 8 which were standing in the name of the appellant and the appeal was dismissed on 8.2.2000.
