Government asks Supreme Court to let it seize assets of Dawood relatives

[related-post]

As per the Ministry, the prime properties in Mumbai’s Nagpada belonged to Dawood but his mother Amina Bi Kaskar (now dead) and his sister Hasina Ibrahim Parkar were in possession of it and hence the law shall require their forfeiture.

Both the mother and the sister had challenged the proceedings, which were initiated after the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. Dawood had fled the country and the departments concerned sought to confiscate properties belonging to him.

Amina and Hasina had moved the top court after the tribunal and the Delhi High Court dismissed their plea against the order of forfeiture passed in July 1998. When they moved the Supreme Court, a bench led by Justice T S Thakur had in November 2012 ordered “status quo” in the case.

The government has now filed its affidavit, challenging their appeals. After her death, Amina Bi’s name has been substituted by her legal representatives. The two women reportedly had seven residential properties in their names — two in Amina Bi’s name and five in Parkar’s name. The properties, worth crores, were allegedly acquired with Dawood’s tainted wealth.

In its response, the Ministry has stated that there was no infirmity with the orders passed by the SAFEMA tribunal in 1998 and the mother and the sister had duly contested the proceedings through their lawyers.

The Ministry countered their submission that they were not served notices duly, hence the subsequent proceedings to attach their properties at Nagpada in south Mumbai were illegal and they should be given a fresh chance to challenge the forfeiture notices.

It said that the records proved they had been served with the notices of attachment of properties and the lawyers appeared for them before the authorities.

Resisting any fresh chance for showing how they acquired these properties, the affidavit said the law prohibited a review of the order after the time to appeal had lapsed.

It claimed ample opportunities were given to Amina and Hasina to adduce legal sources of income for acquisition of properties but no valid document was filed.

Seeking the dismissal of appeals both on the technical ground of expiry of the limitation period as well as on merits, the affidavit has lent credence to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in 2011 and 2012, rejecting the plea against forfeiture of the properties.

The High Court had held that the documents produced by Amina and Hasina established that they were duly served with notices and did not challenge it within the prescribed period of 45 days.