Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976

30 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SMT. KESAR DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 35631 July 2003Dismissed

The appellant, Kesar Devi, wife of a smuggler detained under COFEPOSA, challenged the forfeiture of three properties under SAFEMA, arguing that the notice under Section 6(1) failed to show a nexus between the properties and the illicit proceeds of her husband and that she could also contest the COFEPOSA detention order

TEKCHANDversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY

1993 INSC 13331 March 1993Dismissed

Tekchand, a watch dealer, and his two sons made a voluntary disclosure of income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 and obtained a certificate. After serving a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), they were served no

COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AHMEDABAD ETC.versusAMRITLAL CHANDMAL JAIN AND ORS. ETC.

1998 INSC 20529 April 1998Dismissed

The Competent Authority initiated forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA against Amritlal Chandmal Jain, whose detention under COFEPOSA had earlier been challenged by several writs of habeas corpus. Although the High Court had quashed the detention order and the SAFEMA proceedings, the Competent Authority later sought to

FERAversusM/S. PREMIER LIMITED (FORMERLY PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.) & ORS.

2019 INSC 10229 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a High Court order that had upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Director (Appeals) under FEMA to hear appeals against an adjudication order passed under Section 51 of the repealed FERA. The adjudication order, dated 5 December 2003, imposed a penalty on Godrej Industries Ltd. and

UNION OF INDIAversusGHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI

1994 INSC 42028 September 1994Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against the quashing of a detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 against Ghamandiram Kewalji Gowani, who died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant sought substitution of the deceased’s heirs, arguing that

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusHAJI MASTAN MIRZA

1984 INSC 4523 February 1984Dismissed

Haji Mastan Mirza was first detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and subsequently under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (COFEPOSA). A show‑cause notice under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976

KARIMABEN K. BAGADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

1998 INSC 27122 July 1998Case Allowed

The husband of the petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA and challenged the detention via a writ petition. While the petition was pending, the government revoked the detention order and the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous without addressing its merits. After the husband’s death, proceedings un

M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERSversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 27322 March 2023Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the forfeiture of M/s. Platinum Theatre, a partnership firm, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The competent authority had ordered forfeiture under Section 7 because more than 50% of the theatre's value (Rs.13.12 lakhs) remained unexplai

BISWANATH BHATTACHARYAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2014 INSC 4221 January 2014Dismissed

Biswanath Bhatiacharya, who had been detained under COFEPOSA in the 1970s, was served a notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) to explain the source of his wealth, and later a forfeiture order was passed under Section 7. He challenged the

AAMENABAI TAYEBALY AND ORS.versusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SAFEMA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 74319 November 1997Dismissed

The case concerned the sale of a flat owned by Tahira Sultana, the wife of a COFEPOSA detainee, to Tayab Ali, who later died and whose heirs appealed. The property had been subject to a forfeiture order under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) and a stay was impo

ADISHWAR JAINversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 74419 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Managing Director of an exporting company, was alleged to have misdeclared the value and description of alloy steel exports and to have routed excess proceeds through hawala, leading to investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. He was arrested in October 2003, released on bail in January

VINOD K. CHAWLAversusU.O.I. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 52118 August 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) against Vinod K. Chawla, who was alleged to have evaded customs duty by under‑invoicing electronic imports and remitting proceeds thr

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

2017 INSC 76317 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, bona‑fide tenants of a property owned by Krishna Budha Gawde, challenged the forfeiture of that property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). Gawde had been detained under COFEPOSA and his property was declared “illegally acquired” and forfei

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMOHAN LAL LIKUMAL PUNJABI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 11617 February 2004Case Partly allowed

The Union of India appealed against a Bombay High Court order that set aside a forfeiture order under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) on the ground that the first proviso of Section 2(2)(b) rendered the proceedings non est after the detention order under the C

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM & ANR.versusV. MOHAN & ANR.

2021 INSC 88614 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the interpretation of Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The Competent Authority had issued forfeiture notices under Section 6(1) to the relatives of a convicted smuggler, V.P. Selvarajan, but not to the convict himself, and the High Court

P.P. ABDULLA AND ANR.versusTHE COMPETENT AUTHROITY AND ORS.

2006 INSC 101414 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, convicted under the Customs Act for possessing smuggled gold, was served a notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 alleging that his property was illegally acquired. The authority, after a hearing, ordered forfeiture of the property

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusHARISH KUMAR

2007 INSC 29214 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Harish Kumar, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on 14 June 2002. He filed a writ petition challenging the detention on the ground that his representation to the Central Government, dated 27 September 2002,

NIDHI KAIMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.

2017 INSC 13112 May 2016Directions issued

The appellants, who had secured admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh through the Pre‑Medical Entrance Test (PMT), challenged the cancellation of their results and admissions on the grounds that the Vyapam Board was not validly constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007 and

THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 9979 November 2023Dismissed

The appellants challenged the forfeiture of their properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), arguing that the detention order against them under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) had been re

ASLAM MOHD. MERCHANTversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2008 INSC 7828 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the forfeiture proceedings initiated against the relatives of Iqbal Mohammed Memon (alias Iqbal Mirchi) under Chapter VA of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellants challenged the validity of the show‑cause notices, contending that the Competent Authority had n

NARENDER KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 4708 April 2019Dismissed

The appellant challenged the forfeiture of his family’s properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) on the ground that the underlying detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) wa

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSKIPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.

1996 INSC 6196 May 1996

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) auctioned a plot of land in 1980, which was won by Skipper Construction Company (Skipper). Skipper paid only 25% of the price, repeatedly defaulted on the balance, and despite court orders continued to sell space in the proposed building, collecting about Rs. 25 crore from purchase

M/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGHversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 1306 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) had two parcels of land provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and a confirmation order under s.8(3) was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under s.26. While the appeal was pending, the Enforcement Directorate filed a

STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusHIRABHAI SOMABHAI TANDEL, NANI, DAMAN

1997 INSC 7185 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa detained the step‑father of the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and later, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), ordered forfeiture of the respondent's pr

BHAGUBHAI DHANABHAI KHALASI AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2007 INSC 3815 April 2007Case Partly allowed

Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi was detained under the COFEPOSA Act and his properties were forfeited under SAFEMA. After the forfeiture order was cancelled, the immovable property was not returned, and respondent No.4 claimed a sale deed in his favour. The Gujarat High Court dismissed Khalasi's writ petition under Article

WINSTON TAN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2012 INSC 4464 October 2012Dismissed

The appellants purchased a flat from a detenu and his wife after notices under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) had been served, and later the Competent Authority forfeited the property under Section 7, declaring it vested in the Central Government

SHOBHA SURESH JUMANIversusAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FORFEITED PROPERTY AND ANR.

2001 INSC 2544 May 2001Dismissed

The appellant, Shobha Suresh Jumani, wife of a detenu whose properties were ordered forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, filed an appeal claiming to be a "person aggrieved" under Section 12(4) of the Act and also sought maintenance under the Hindu Adoption

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMANOHARLAL NARANG

1987 INSC 652 March 1987Dismissed

The case concerned a notice issued under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) against Manoharlal Narang, who was a brother of Ramlal Narang, whose detention under COFEPOSA had been challenged. The Supreme Court examined whether a relative could raise f

SMT. GANGADEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 11311 October 1996Disposed off

The widow of Shrikrishna Gopilal Solanki, who died while detained under COFEPOSA, challenged the forfeiture of her properties under SAFEMA. Solanki had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court contesting his detention order, but the petition was dismissed as infructuous on the basis of an incorrect representation

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search