9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge. We are prima facie satisfied that no prejudice in any manner will be caused to the appellant if the jewellery is released, for the reason that before the Single Judge, the respondents have volunteered to furnish a fixed deposit receipts in the amount ₹ 1,23,22,317/- and ₹ 29,64,387/- respectively and also furnish an undertaking that they would not transfer, part with or encumber in any manner or alienate jewellery returned to them and this undertaking has been accepted by the Court. We are informed that the undertaking has been furnished. Additionally, we direct the Department to take pictures of the jewellery in the presence of the respondents herein and the pictures would be duly signed by both the parties for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein sought the release of the jewellery in lieu of security by way of a Fixed Deposit of ₹ 1,23,22,317/- in the case of respondent No. 1 and ₹ 29,64,387/- in the case of respondent No.2. This amount was as per the valuation of the jewellery given by the appellants herein. Mrs. Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the filing of a writ petition by two parties and filing of a review petition and getting the matter adjourned sine die is part of a larger device of the parties to delay the matter and even otherwise a single order cannot be split and the parties cannot be permitted to take advantage in the manner which is being sought. Additionally, it is contended before us that there is no provision under the PM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h property beyond the said period. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the operative part of which reads as under: 10. Prima facie, the contention advanced by the petitioners appears to be merited as admittedly no order of seizure of jewellery has been passed against the petitioners. 11. As noted above, there appears to be no dispute that certain jewellery seized on 22.09.2014 belongs to the petitioners. This is also noted by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order. 12. Admittedly, after the seizure was affected under Section 17(1) of the Act, the respondents were required to seek an extension under Section 20 of the PMLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 1,23,22,317/- in case of petitioner no. 1 and ₹ 29,64,387/- in case of petitioner no. 2). This shall be released to petitioners on them furnishing (a) fixed deposit of the aforesaid amount to the respondents; and (b) an undertaking to this Court that they shall not transfer, part with, encumber or in any manner alienate the jewellery so returned. It is clarified that the attachment with regard to the jewellery shall continue and although, the petitioners may be placed in possession of the said jewellery the same would be considered as custodia legis. 5. We do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned ASG in view of the fact that admittedly the respondents herein are not party to the proceedings i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
