9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of gold ornaments from a bank locker. 2. Claim for the return of seized articles under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Dispute regarding ownership of the seized articles between the petitioner and her son. 4. Legal implications of the seizure under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Gold Control Act, 1968. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the return of gold ornaments seized from her bank locker. The seizure was conducted by the Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner claimed that no action was taken against her regarding the seized articles. The respondents, including the Collector of Central Excise and Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate, were named in the petition. 2. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 did not justify the seizure of the articles. The respondent mentioned a dilemma regarding to whom the articles should be returned, the petitioner or her son. The respondent alleged a contradiction in statements between the petitioner and her son regarding the ownership of the seized articles. However, the court found no substance in the respondent's arguments and ruled in favor of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's husband was initially associated with the bank locker along with the petitioner and their son. After the husband's demise, the son's name was included to facilitate the locker's operation. The respondents did not contest these assertions. The court noted that no other person had come forward to claim the seized articles, strengthening the petitioner's claim of ownership. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought in the petition. 4. Respondent No. 1, in a separate application, asserted that he was unnecessarily impleaded in the petition and requested his name to be removed from the parties. He also mentioned the legal provisions under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, regarding the seizure of the articles. The petitioner argued that since no action was taken under the Gold Control Act within the stipulated time frame, the seized articles should be unconditionally returned. The court, however, did not delve into the merits of these claims and directed respondent No. 2 to return the seized articles to the petitioner from the bank locker specified in the seizure memo. 5. The court allowed the petition, ordering the return of the seized articles and made no ruling on costs. The judgment highlighted the petitioner's entitlement to the relief sought based on the circumstances presented and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the respondents' objections.
|
