- News>
- India
HC restrains special court from attaching Dawood properties
Mumbai, Nov 11: Mumbai High Court has restrained a special court from passing orders on attachment of Sara Shopping Complex and Sahara Shopping Centres, allegedly owned by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, and deferred till November 25 the petition challenging police move to seize the properties.
Mumbai, Nov 11: Mumbai High Court has restrained a
special court from passing orders on attachment of Sara
Shopping Complex and Sahara Shopping Centres, allegedly owned
by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, and deferred till November
25 the petition challenging police move to seize the properties.
About 300 tenants of the shopping complexes and global
marketing company yesterday moved a division bench of the High
Court challenging the order of the special court seeking to
attach the properties. They argued that they were in legal
possession of the properties and could not be dispossessed.
The petitioners challenged November 4 order of designated
judge A P Bhangale who had ordered them to lead evidence to
show proof of ownership to counter the police claim that the
properties belong to underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.
The judge had earlier allowed prosecutor Rohini Salian to lead evidence to show that the properties belonged to the underworld. The tenants told the court that they did not wish to lead evidence. Central Public Works Department of the Union Government, on whose land the properties in question stand, said they had repaid the money taken from global marketing company earlier and argued that they were not tenants in stricter legal sense.
Bureau Report
The judge had earlier allowed prosecutor Rohini Salian to lead evidence to show that the properties belonged to the underworld. The tenants told the court that they did not wish to lead evidence. Central Public Works Department of the Union Government, on whose land the properties in question stand, said they had repaid the money taken from global marketing company earlier and argued that they were not tenants in stricter legal sense.
Bureau Report