DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 17-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 617 
DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 34 of2009) 
AUGUST 17,2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture 
B 
of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA)-ss. 3(J)(c), 7 and 19-Detention 
order against a person - Confirmation of the detention order and 
C 
detenu covered by SAFEMA - Notice of forfeiture of the property 
of detenu - Order of forfeiture, if would operate against the tenants 
of the said property - Held: The property would be treated as 
"illegally acquired property" within the meaning of s. 3(J)(c) and 
can be subjected to forfeiture under the provisions thereof -
However, rights of a bona fide tenant would not stand automatically 
D 
terminated by forfeiture of property and vesting thereof in the Central 
Government - Such forfeiture would extinguish the rights of the 
person to whom the Act applies, the owner of the property or his 
relative or associate having nexus with him in relation to the said 
property. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the instant case, it is undisputed that only 
adjudication which has taken place by the competent authority is 
that the property was owned by the person to whom the Smugglers 
and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 
1976 applied i.e. against whom the order of detention _had been 
confirmed. The rights of the appellants, who claim to be bona 
fide tenants even prior to purchase of the property by the person 
to whom the Act applied, have not been adjudicated upon on the 
assumption that their rights will stand automatically terminated. 
E 
F 
G 
In view of law laid down by this Court, the rights of a bona fide 
tenant will not stand automatically terminated by forfeiture of 
property and vesting thereof in the Central Government. Such 
forfeiture will extinguish the rights of the person to whom the 
Act applies in the instant case, the owner of the property in 
question or his relative or associate having nexus with him in 
H 
617 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S,C.R. 
A relation to the said property. However, the question whether the 
appellants are the bona fide tenants and had no nexus with the 
acquisition of the property by the person to whom the Act applied 
as claimed by them, would be determined independently by the 
competent authority as defined in section 3(B) of the Act. The 
order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the competent authority for passing an appropriate order in 
accordance with Jaw. £Paras 20, 21) [629-D-G; 630-A) 
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 
78 : (1992) 3 Suppl. SCR 12; Attorney General for 
India and Ors. v. Amratlal Prajivandas and Ors. (1994) 
5 SCC 54: (1994) 1 Suppl. SCR 1; State of West Bengal 
and Ors. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P)Ltd. and 
Anr.(2002) 4 SCC 134 : [2002) 2 SCR 557; Fatima 
Mohd. Amin (Smt.) (Dead) through LRs. v. Union of 
India and Am: (2003) 7 SCC 436 ; P.P. Abdulla and 
Am: v. Authority and ors. (2007) 2 SCC 510 : [20061 
10 Suppl. SCR 983; Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. 
Competent Authority and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 186 : 
(2008) 10 SCR 332; Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India 
and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 762 : [2016) 1 SCR 419; · 
Narayan Vittappa Kudva versus Union of India and 
Anr. 2002 (2) MhLJ 290 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1992) 3 Suppl. SCR 12 
referred to 
Para 9 
(19941 1 Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to 
Para9 
[2002 I 2 SCR 557 
referred to 
Para9 
(2003) 1 sec 436 
referred to 
Para9 
(2006) 10 Suppl. SCR 983 
referred to 
Para 9 
[2008) 10 SCR 332 
referred to 
Para9 
(2016) 1 SCR 419 
referred to 
Para9 
2002 (2) MhLJ 290 
referred to 
Para9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.34 of2009. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 11.07 .2007 passed by 
DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
619 
v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 
A 
1088of1995. 
Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Pratap Venugopal, Ms.Surekha 
Raman, Ms.Niharika, Anuj Sarma, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan (for K. J. 
John and Co.) Advs. for the Appellants. 
Mahling Pandarge, AAG, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu 
B 
Tamta, Abbay Kumar, B.V. Balaram Das, Nishant Ramakantrao 
Katneshwarkar, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs'. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.