CAUSE TITLE:
RITIKA AWASTY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF ORDER:
17-04-2023
JUDGE(S):
Krishna Murari, Sanjay Karol
PARTIES:
Petitioner:Ritika Awasty
Respondent:State Of U.P. & Ors
SUBJECT
While granting interlocutory applications, the Supreme Court stated that no proximate link could be demonstrated to justify the attachment of the property of the petitioner's family or the purchaser of her property to pay for the defaults.
BRIEF FACTS
- Through interlocutory motions, the petitioner sought to vacate or modify the Apex Court's order insofar as it reflected the petitioners' properties. In this case, the disputed property was allegedly owned by the petitioner and her husband, who procured food grains, and numerous FIRs were filed against them charging fraud, deceit, and dishonesty.
- The land was purchased in 1966 and afterward established as a HUF; however, in 1990, the HUF was dissolved and the property was partitioned into four pieces via a deed. As a result, such property was the subject matter of the stay on the right to transfer the property by order.
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- Based on the facts of the case, the Supreme Court stated, "The ownership of 5/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi resting with the applicants in IA No.6484 of 2018 is an uncontested statement of fact. It is impossible to refute or challenge the claim that the applicants are unrelated to or have no connection to the business transactions of the petitioner, Ms. Ritika Awasty, or her husband, Mr. Virkaran Awasty.
- The Court further stated that it could not be determined from the evidence presented that the second property was a "sham" purchase.
- "With Mrs. Monica Gogia's bona fide ownership established at least prima facie, and in the absence of any prior or present link of such bona fide owner with the petitioner's or her husband's business dealings, the continued operation of the Order dated 15.12.2017 is prejudicially affecting the rights of ownership which the applicant in IA No.58055 of 2021 undoubtedly enjoys," the Court stated.
- The Court further stated that the prohibition prohibiting the bona genuine buyer and owner from transferring the property has been lifted.
- The Court made it quite clear that this order "is only limited to the reliefs demonstrated in the instant applications and shall in no way disrupt with any other investigations or proceedings concerning the subject matter, including but not limited to the duly authorized and continuing extradition proceedings or any other proceedings indicated under the country's fiscal or penal laws."
- The property transfer in the name of the current owners could not be connected to the transaction that is the focus of the criminal investigation, according to the two-judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol. The Interlocutory Applications are allowed for the previously mentioned reasons as well as the specific one that prima facie no proximate link could be established to support the attachment of property of the petitioner's relatives or the buyer of her property to make up for defaults that may be owed to her or her husband.
- The Bench amended its order as requested by the petitioner and de-attached the entire subject property.
- As a result, the Court decided that the case should be listed once the extradition proceedings against the petitioner and her husband had concluded in a just and reasonable manner.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
