9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Court and only thereafter certain observations have been made. It is not a case where this Court has written any finding of guilt against the present review petitioner Natwar Lal Sharda. However, existence of material on record prima facie indicating involvement of the present review petitioner along with other Directors of the company and other persons have been considered while examining the allegations that the search carried out in the business premises of the company and its Director and family members was vexatious, malicious and without any material whatsoever. What weight is required to be given to those materials would be a matter to be considered in various proceedings drawn by the Department and in other criminal proceedings. This Court only examined the material on record to find out whether the search carried out in the premises of the company could be said to be vexatious. The writ petition has been dismissed. - HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Anupam Bhargava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. According to the review petitioner, though on such allegations of he being involved in evasion of tax, he was arrested but later on, granted bail. An application for cancellation of bail was also rejected. He had filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court; Writ Petition (C) No. 9956/2017 was filed seeking declaration that the action of the officers of respondents therein against the review petitioner was arbitrary, malicious and motivated and search conducted in his residential premises were illegal and against the provisions of law along with the prayer seeking declaration that detention was illegal. Prayer was also made for direction to conduct inquiry against the officers of the respondents therein. In another case i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3532/2017, validity of provisions of Sections 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been questioned on the ground that the same is ultra-vires various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Constitution of India. Prayer has also been made for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the review petitioner. 4. When the petitioner came to know that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections for taking action against the officers of the respondents on the allegation that the search and further proceedings were vexatious and an act of harassment. The material placed before the writ court by the respondents was thoroughly and meticulously examined and on the basis of the material before the Court, observations were made regarding review petitioner's role also. He would further submit that the issue with regard to review petitioner continuing as Director of the company on the date the search was carried out itself is a serious issue. The order passed in the Writ Petition No. 2031/2018 does not conclude all the proceedings pending in various fora but only answers issues arising in the case that without any basis search was conducted and the Director of the petitioner-company and their family members were harassed. He would further submit that Division Bench has passed a detailed order and with reference to the specific material on record, it has been stated that some incriminating material has emerged from the record indicating involvement of the present petitioner. Therefore, the review petition is without any basis and deserves to be dismissed. 7. A peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at search was conducted in the premises of the review petitioner. The fact that the review petitioner was arrested and then granted bail has also been taken into consideration. It has also been taken into consideration that vide order dated 18.12.2017, the Delhi High Court has declined to grant any interim relief observing that review petitioner is accused of a serious offence of evading excise duty of more than Rs. 63 crores and the matter is at the stage of investigation. The order under review and the statements made in the counter affidavit regarding involvement of the present review petitioner were also taken into consideration. It has also been taken into consideration that on the basis of intelligence inputs, search was carried out at various premises at Bastar, Indore and Jaipur including residential premises of the review petitioner. Recovery of certain materials during the course of search carried out in different premises, have also been taken into consideration. The material, prima facie, disclosing involvement of the present review petitioner has also been taken note of. All the materials which have been collected by the respondents during the course of search and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
