9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit maintainability and jurisdiction. 2. Legality of notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. 3. Violation of provisions of Gold Control Act. 4. Ownership of seized gold. 5. Adjudication of confiscation without notice. 6. Sec. 108 of the Gold Control Act. Analysis: The plaintiff, in this case, failed to secure the return of gold seized by the defendants under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The dispute arose when defendant No. 2 searched the plaintiff's house and demanded the gold bangles for seizure. The plaintiff, claiming the bangles as her Stridhan properties, threw them into a well to avoid seizure. The defendants recovered the gold and seized it, leading to the plaintiff filing a suit alleging illegal seizure. The trial court examined various issues, including the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, legality of the notice, violation of Gold Control Act provisions, ownership of the seized gold, and relief entitled to the plaintiff. It held that the gold bangles seized did not belong to the plaintiff, were not ornaments under the Act, and the suit was maintainable. The appellant argued that the confiscation of gold was contrary to the Act and should be returned to the plaintiff. The respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 84 of the Act, which provides finality to decisions and bars challenges. The High Court emphasized that the Act is exhaustive, providing for confiscation procedures, appeals, and challenges up to the Supreme Court. It noted that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred, except for cases where Act provisions are not followed or fundamental judicial principles are violated. The Court highlighted Sec. 79 of the Act, requiring notice and opportunity for the owner before confiscation. It ruled that confiscation without notice to the concerned person violates natural justice principles. The plaintiff, claiming ownership of the gold, should have been given an opportunity before confiscation. The Court rejected the defense's reliance on Sec. 108 of the Act, which protects actions done in good faith. It stated that actions contravening Sec. 79 cannot be considered in good faith, and violators cannot be shielded. Consequently, the Court decreed that the gold seized cannot be confiscated without giving the plaintiff an opportunity under Sec. 79. It directed the defendants to proceed with confiscation after providing notice to the plaintiff and ordered the return of the seized gold to the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed, and costs were not awarded. In conclusion, the judgment emphasized procedural fairness, adherence to statutory provisions, and the importance of providing opportunities for affected parties in confiscation proceedings under the Gold Control Act.
|
