9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iripad, J. The question involved in this original petition is whether the retention of certain documents belonging to the petitioner and seized by the second respondent is sustainable in law, in view of certain provisions contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for brevity " the Act "). The facts are short and not in serious dispute. On September 16, 1976, the enforcement auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs under section 38 of the Act. Regarding the documents so seized, the other relevant provision is section 41 of the Act, which I may read: " 41. Custody of documents, etc. Where in pursuance of an order made under sub-section (2) of section 33 or of the provisions of section 34 or section 36 or section 37 or of a requisition or summons under section 39 or section 40, any document is furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e competent to retain the documents seized under section 38 for a period of one year on grounds stated in section 41( i ) and ( ii ) of the Act. The case of the respondent is that the retention of the documents seized in this case is justified by the provisions of section 41( i ). So, if any proceeding under section 51 has been commenced, the respondents are entitled to retain the documents in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntent. It is, therefore, clear that the proceedings under section 51 have been initiated on August 4, 1977 and the initiation of proceedings is based upon the seizure of the documents, which took place on September 16, 1976. There is, thus, valid compliance with the provisions of law by the respondents and the petitioner is not entitled to get back the concerned documents until the proceedings are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
