TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that in the search conducted on Nov. 1979 u/s 132 of the Act, certain jewellery was seized from one L. The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the adopted son of L. Held that- the jewellery was not available with the Revenue but had been sold for recovery of dues and though the petitioner relied on the order of assessment passed in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. In spite of that, the jewellery in question was given by respondent No. 2 to unauthorised persons on March 30, 2000. This petition has been filed on February 25, 2009. Reliance has also been placed on order of this court dated November 11, 2008 in C.W.P. No. 18727 of 2007 Rajinder Kumar Verma v. Union of India and others, annexure P-2, filed by the husband of the petitioner. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is at par with order of this court dated November 11, 2008, annexure P-2 while learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by earlier order of this court dated December 12, 2006, annexure A-2. 6. We find that the case of the petitioner is not covered by ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|