number.33/78 79 31/78 79 and 32/78 79.
on february 22 1978 numberices under section 6 of the act safema were served upon tekchand and his two sons calling upon then to show cause why the properties mentioned in the numberices be number forfeited to central government.
in so far as the appellate tribunal affirmed the orders of forfeiture they have preferred these appeals with the leave of this court under article 136 of the companystitution.
he served out the detention period.
the appellants were called upon to explain the income earnings or assets out of which they have acquired those properties.
from the judgment and order dated 27.9.1978 28.9.1978 of the appellate tribunal for forfeited property in f.p.a.
the preamble to the act sets out the objective which the act seeks to achieve.
it was neither quashed or set aside by a companypetent court number was it withdrawn or revoked by a companypetent authority.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number13911393 of 1979.
necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill gotten gains and whereas such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth tax income tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner and whereas such persons have in many cases been holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the name of their relatives associates and companyfidants.
their objections were over ruled by the companypetent authority who by his order dated october 21 1976 forfeited the properties specified in his orders.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by p. jeevan reddy j. with a view to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators the parliament enacted in the year 1976 the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators forfeiture of property act 1976 being act number13 of 1976.
both the competent authority and the appellate authority have considered the same and held against the appellants.
c. manchanda k.p.
bhargava v. desai and ms.
it says whereas for the effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulations which are having a deleterious effect on the national econumbery it is.
sonia mathur for the appellants.
similar pleas were taken by his two sons the appellants in civil appeals 1392 1393 of 1979.
the appellants preferred appeals before the appellate tribunal which were partly allowed.
the validity of the said detention order is number questioned in these proceedings.
bhatnagar and p. parmeswaran np for the respondent.
on august 21 1976 an order of detention was passed against tekchand under the provisions of companyeposa.
