9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. - W. P. No. 18283 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr V Nithyanandam for M/s Star Associates For the Respondent : Mr V Candrasekar ORDER Seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents jointly or severally to pay the balance amount of ₹ 4,36,676/- out of ₹ 11, 65,000/- being the value of the goods, which were seized from the custody of the son of the petitioner and auctioned by the respondents, together with interest, he has before this court with this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 12.04.2002, the son of the petitioner was to undertake a trip to Delhi by Indian Airlines Flight (IC 44). While so, on the basis of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s so seized, he was informed that the goods were already disposed of by the disposal unit, customs house at Chennai. Subsequently, by letter dated 18.02.2004, he was advised to claim the value of the goods. Thereafter, by his letter dated 19.03.2004, when he claimed the value of the goods, he was paid only a sum of ₹ 7,29,327/- alleging that the goods were disposed of only for ₹ 7,29,327/-. However, according to the petitioner, he received the said amount without prejudice to his rights. Thereafter, he sent two notices through his counsel on 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 respectively claiming refund of balance amount, but there was no response. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the order was passed as early as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice or intimation, the goods of the petitioner were sold out and when the petitioner approached the authorities for refund, a portion of the amount alone was paid and the petitioner is entitled to get refunded the difference in the goods value. 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would, on the other hand, submit that the goods were sold only as per the value prevalent at the relevant point of time which is stoutly opposed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to give quietus to the issue, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
