TEJKUMAR BALAKRISHNA RUIA versus A.K. MENON AND ANOTHER

TEJKUMAR BALAKRISHNA RUIA versus A.K. MENON AND ANOTHER

Income generated by a notified person by his own labour after the date of notification does not stand attached under Section 3(3) of the Act, whereas income or usufruct of previously attached property continues to be attached property.

Parties
Appellant: Tejkumar Balakrishna Ruia; Respondents: A.K. Menon and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 14/21.2.96 of the Special Court, Bombay in Misc.p. No. 278 of 1995
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Attachment of Property, Interpretation of Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tejkumar Balakrishna Ruia

Appellant

A.K. Menon and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 14/21.2.96 of the Special Court, Bombay in Misc.p. No. 278 of 1995

  1. 1 Whether income earned by a notified person after the date of notification, by his own labour, is liable for attachment under Section 3(3) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992

Ratio Decidendi

Income generated by a notified person by his own labour after the date of notification does not stand attached under Section 3(3) of the Act, whereas income or usufruct of previously attached property continues to be attached property.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment and orders under appeal are set aside.
  • The petition filed by the appellant in the Special Court is allowed to the extent that income generated by his own labour is not subject to attachment; he is entitled to open a bank account for such income.