9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Original dated 26th November 2009. - 3139 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2010 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hardik P. Modh, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri R.M. Chhaya, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. Considering the fact that the controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. Hence, rule. Learned advocate for the respondents is directed to waive service of rule. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief : [a] That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained demand drafts dated 19-12-09 for Rs. 25 lakhs imposed in lieu of confiscation, for Rs. 5 lakhs towards penalty imposed on the petitioner, and for Rs. 1 lakh each towards penalty imposed on the two directors. The petitioner also addressed a letter dated 24th December 2009 to the respondent No. 2 informing him that they were making payment of redemption fine and penalty as aforesaid under protest. Details of the payment were also set out in the said letter, which appears to have been received by the respondent No. 2 on 30-12-09. Request was also made to pass necessary instructions to the concerned officers to release the cut and polished diamonds seized under panchnama dated 27th August 2008 at the earliest. On 29th December 2009, pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 13th March 2010 was unsustainable. Since, despite several requests, the goods of the petitioner were not released, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove. 5. Heard Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R. M. Chhaya, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that Section 125 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for redemption of goods. Hence, the respondents were not justified in not permitting the petitioner to redeem the goods in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner had obtained demand drafts in favour of the respondents and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent that the petitioner had deposited the demand drafts dated 19-12-2009 as detailed in the letter dated 24th December, 2009 (Annexure-F) with the Bank of Baroda vide TR-6 challans dated 29-12-2009. Thus, the petitioner had divested itself of the funds and the bank was in possession of funds which would be handed over the moment draft was presented and demand made. The Order-in-original is dated 26-11-2009, hence the period of thirty days from the date of the order would expire on 27-12-2009. As pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, 27th and 28th December 2009 were holidays. Immediately on the next day thereafter, the petitioner has obtained TR-6 challans and deposited the demand drafts with the Bank. Hence, if the time s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
