ED books man for demolishing, selling attached property linked to Iqbal Mirchi
ED officials learned in June 2025 that Abdul Kader Ali Mohammed had allegedly encroached on the property and entered into a Rs 15 crore sale deal, despite it being under attachment. The agency began investigating the encroachment and demolition of the structure.Their investigation found that Iqbal Siraj Qureshi had been living on the premises for over 35 years in a temporary house and was working for Mukhtar Patka, a relative of Mirchi, who paid him a monthly wage. Patka told the ED that he managed the theatre's operations since 1999 on the instructions of Mirchi, and continued to operate from the property even after its attachment.In September 2024, Abdul Kader Ali Mohammed approached Patka claiming ownership of the property and informed him about the planned demolition. Despite being told that the property was under ED attachment, he went ahead with the demolition.According to the ED, Abdul Kader had known Iqbal Mirchi since 1965 and they had jointly agreed to purchase the property in 1982 for Rs 6 lakh. A token amount of Rs 60,000 was paid equally by both. Abdul Kader later claimed he paid the remaining Rs 5.4 lakh but failed to produce any documentary proof of this transaction.Possession of the property was reportedly taken in 1983, and it was handed over to Patka for safekeeping and operations. In 2023, Abdul Kader executed a deed of conveyance in his name, without informing or contacting the legal heirs of either Iqbal Mirchi or the original sellers.In November 2023, Abdul Kader signed a sale agreement with Govind Bansal for Rs 15 crore and accepted a token payment of Rs 99 lakh. He also sold theatre materials and scrap to another individual for Rs 5 lakh in cash.The ED stated that Abdul Kader failed to explain why no deed of conveyance was executed in 1983 or why he did not inform the legal heirs before executing the 2023 deed. The agency also noted that a petition has been filed by Junaid Iqbal Memon, son of Iqbal Mirchi, seeking the removal of encroachment from the property.- EndsTune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Imperative for police to investigate': Supreme Court pulls up UP Police for not probing complaint of witness in Lakhimpur Kheri violence case
The Supreme Court Thursday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Police for not reaching out to a witness who was allegedly threatened not to depose in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, in which former BJP Union minister Ajay Mishra's son Ashish Mishra is one of the accused. In January, the witness approached the Supreme Court, claiming that someone had threatened him not to depose in the trial. The apex court on March 24 allowed the witness to give a complaint to the police and said that it should be investigated dispassionately. On Thursday, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the complainant in the case, told a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh that though the complaint was given, no FIR was registered. 'He was given liberty to make (a) complaint with authorities… We made a complaint in writing on June 20, pointing out that he was called by a person and given (an) inducement of Rs 1 lakh…threatened that if he deposed, he will face dire consequences… Despite this, no FIR till date, Bhushan submitted. He added that this was in violation of the judgement in the Lalita Kumari case, according to which an FIR has to be registered within a week of the complaint. Appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh, Senior Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad submitted that the superintendent of police (SP) had called the complainant, but he did not appear. Justice Kant, however, said, 'Where a complaint is received, which prima facie discloses a cognisable offence, and if you find that for reasons unknown to you, the complainant is not coming forward…what's wrong if your police officer goes there and finds out?' The state counsel agreed to do so and said, 'We will do that.' 'In case the complainant has been reluctant in coming forward in support of his complaint, some senior police officer can be deputed to visit the complainant to verify if (a) complaint has been made by him. If such contents are acknowledged, it is imperative for (the) police to investigate. Necessary consequences must follow,' the bench said. The court also asked the Lucknow SP to file an affidavit after verification of the complaint. Bhushan said if the police found any truth in the complaint, the court must cancel the bail of Ashish Mishra, who is accused of mowing down farmers protesting against the now-scrapped farm laws at Lakhimpur on October 3, 2021. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for Ashish Mishra, opposed this, saying the allegations were being made without any proof. He pointed out that out of the 208 witnesses, the prosecution dropped 20 witnesses, and of those remaining, 20 key witnesses have been examined so far. Dave added that though the trial court is hearing the case thrice a month, 'nobody turns up'. On the day of the violence, a convoy of vehicles, including one belonging to Ajay Mishra, allegedly ran over four protesting farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri. In the ensuing clash, two BJP workers, the driver of one of the vehicles, and a journalist were also killed. Ashish Mishra was arrested within six days. The Allahabad High Court initially granted him bail in the case, but the Supreme Court set aside the high court order after the kin of some of the deceased approached it. The matter was remanded back to the high court, which, after rehearing, dismissed the bail plea. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the case on January 25, 2023. This was extended from time to time and made absolute on July 22, 2024.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC releases Karti Chidambaram's Rs 1 cr deposited as pre-condition for foreign travel
The Supreme Court has directed the release of ₹1 crore previously deposited by Lok Sabha MP Karti P Chidambaram. This deposit was a pre-condition set in 2022 for his foreign travel. The court's decision came after noting that Karti Chidambaram had complied with the previous conditions by returning to India and submitting his passport to the investigating officer. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the release of Rs 1 crore deposited by Lok Sabha MP Karti P Chidambaram with the apex court in 2022 as a pre-condition for foreign travel A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh allowed his 2023 application and noted after travelling abroad he returned to India and deposited his passport with the investigating officer."Amount of Rs 1 crore deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest accrued thereupon is directed to be released in 1 week," the court son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, is accused in several cases including in Aircel-Maxis and INX Media was granted bail in both top court in 2022 asked him to deposit Rs 1 crore with the apex court registry as a pre-condition to travel abroad.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
MACT awards Rs 21.54 lakh compensation to kin of man killed in 2019 road accident
Thane: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has awarded compensation of Rs 21.54 lakh to the kin of a 59-year-old man who died in a road accident in 2019. Arun Mahajan, a supervisor with a pharmaceutical firm, died on August 9 that year after a speeding tempo rammed into several vehicles, including his motorcycle near Pataripul in Kalyan. In the order of August 1, MACT member RV Mohite accepted the claimants' contention that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. It also said the tempo was uninsured at the time of the accident and the driver lacked a valid licence for heavy goods vehicle. The MACT said the insurance firm will pay the compensation and then recover it from the vehicle owner. It awarded Rs 21.54 lakh to Mahajan wife and three children. The amount included Rs 17.89 lakh for loss of future income.
