NARENDER KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

NARENDER KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Since the detention order against Roshan Lal was not revoked under any of the four parts of the proviso to s.2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, nor set aside by a competent court before expiry of Emergency, the substantive provisions of SAFEMA apply. Forfeiture orders were lawfully made after due notice and opportunity to affected persons, and High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition challenging their validity.

Parties
Appellant: Narender Kumar; Respondents: Union of India and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Detention Under COFEPOSA, Applicability of SAFEMA, Forfeiture of Property, Procedural Safeguards During Detention
Criminal Law Property Law Administrative Law Detention Under COFEPOSA Applicability of SAFEMA Forfeiture of Property Procedural Safeguards During Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narender Kumar

Appellant

Union of India and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SAFEMA applies when detention under COFEPOSA is not revoked or set aside before expiry of Emergency
  2. 2 Whether property acquired by detenu can be declared illegally acquired and forfeited under SAFEMA
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements for detention and communication of grounds were met

Ratio Decidendi

Since the detention order against Roshan Lal was not revoked under any of the four parts of the proviso to s.2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, nor set aside by a competent court before expiry of Emergency, the substantive provisions of SAFEMA apply. Forfeiture orders were lawfully made after due notice and opportunity to affected persons, and High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition challenging their validity.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • High Court judgment and orders affirmed
  • Forfeiture of properties to Central Government upheld