- News>
- India
Court receiver files inventory report of Dawood`s properties
Mumbai, June 09: A court receiver today filed in a special court a list of moveable and immoveable assets of Sara Shopping Centre and Sahara Shopping Complex, allegedly belonging to underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.
Mumbai, June 09: A court receiver today filed in a special court a list of moveable and immoveable assets of Sara Shopping Centre and Sahara Shopping Complex, allegedly belonging to underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.
The court had on May 19 attached the shopping centres and appointed senior inspector of Azad Maidan police station here as the court receiver. The latter took charge of the properties the next day to prepare an inventory.
Both the shopping centres are located opposite Crawford market in south Mumbai. The structures stand on land owned by Central Public Works Department.
According to police, they were illegally constructed by Dawood and his henchmen in connivance with civic body officials.
In a related development, high court would hear tomorrow a petition filed by 370 tenants of the shopping complexes and joint owners of the properties, challenging the order of the special court to attach the properties and appointing court receiver in respect thereof.
The petitioners argued that properties were jointly owned by them and did not belong to all the accused alone. Therefore the attachment order was per se illegal.
Bureau Report
Both the shopping centres are located opposite Crawford market in south Mumbai. The structures stand on land owned by Central Public Works Department.
According to police, they were illegally constructed by Dawood and his henchmen in connivance with civic body officials.
In a related development, high court would hear tomorrow a petition filed by 370 tenants of the shopping complexes and joint owners of the properties, challenging the order of the special court to attach the properties and appointing court receiver in respect thereof.
The petitioners argued that properties were jointly owned by them and did not belong to all the accused alone. Therefore the attachment order was per se illegal.
Bureau Report