An intra court appeal preferred thereagainst under the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court was preferred thereagainst by the appellant.
Allegations made in the said writ petition were denied and disputed.
Apparently, a question was raised therein as to whether the same in effect and substance was filed by the appellant or some other person.
Respondent No.
The said Writ Petition was allowed.
Representations were made by him for return of the said properties.
4 herein or number.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2005 dismissed the said writ petition, holding I have gone through the petition, documents annexed with the memo of petition, affidavits and other documents which have been shown to me by the learned companynsel for the respective parties.
He filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court questioning the said order of detention as also the order passed under SAFEMA.
Appellant was directed to appear before the Division Bench and he purportedly admitted that he had executed a deed of sale in favour of the respondent No.
Allegedly, whereas the fixed deposit receipt was returned to him, the immovable properties were number.
4 who was impleaded as a party thereto companytended that the appellant had transferred the said property in his favour.
An order of preventive detention was passed against the appellant under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short, COFEPOSA Act .
A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst by the companypetent authority was also dismissed.
A handwriting expert opined that two signatures on the application dated 4.4.1997 and two signatures on a certified Photostat companyy of affidavit dated 13.1.2003 were number that of the appellant.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have number sold the property in question, but some persons have forged and fabricated documents and the property has been transferred by way of registered sale deed, behind the back of the Petitioners illegally and fraudulently.
A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant.
An order was passed by the companypetent authority on or about 30.1.1996 canceling the Order dated 24.9.1979 whereby and whereunder the properties were directed to be forfeited.
Thereupon, Shri Sanjanwala gave up his request.
1818 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
6257 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
He had properties at Bhadarwal, in the district Jaipur and a fixed deposit receipt of Dena Bank.
The said properties were forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 for short, SAFEMA .
