9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs took place in respect of these gold ornaments and gold as a result of which ultimately an order dated 28-2-1985 was passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay under which inter alia, the petitioner, as owner of the said gold and gold ornaments was given an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/-within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Under the said order a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed on the owner. Though the order is passed on 28-2-1985 it was issued only on 9-10-1985. Within one month of the receipt of the said order the petitioner paid the fine of Rs. 30,000/- on 8-11-1985. Thereafter the petitioner repeatedly applied to the respondents for return of the said gold and gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that there was no order from any other authority which prevented the respondents from handing over the said items to the petitioner. In view of the statements made by Mr. Sethna that the said items would be returned to the petitioner in the course of the day and since there was no impediment of any sort to such return which was only in compliance with the orders already passed, I kept the matter on 27th March, 1986 since 26th March was a holiday. I did not pass any interim order in view of the statement of Mr. Sethna. 3. When the petition was called out on the morning of 27th March, 1986 I was informed by the Advocate for the petitioner that although his client had gone to the respondents to collect the gold and gold ornaments on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o me that Mansoori who was present in Court would immediately go to his office and hand over the gold and gold ornaments to the petitioner and/or his advocate. I once again kept back the matter till 4.40 p.m. on that day. From the affidavits which have been filed before me I find that on 31st March, 1986 at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioner along with his advocate went to take delivery of the gold and gold ornaments. The petitioner and his advocate were directed by Mansoori to see S.D. Metha, Superintendent (Custodian). The petitioner and his advocate thereupon went to S.D. Metha who took out the box containing the said gold and gold ornaments. He called two panchas and asked the Advocate to identify the petitioner. He also asked the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have produced them in Court yesterday. 6. Curiously enough the order from the Income-tax Department on which the respondents seem to rely so strongly and which is annexed as Exhibit 'II' to the affidavit of Mansoori which is dated 2nd April, 1986 shows that this order was only issued at 5.45 p.m. on 31st March, 1986. In other words, right from 25th March till 31st March, 1986 when the petitioner and/or his advocate paid numerous visits to the respondents in order to collect the gold and gold ornaments there was absolutely no reason why the respondents could not have handed over the gold and gold ornaments to the petitioner. One cannot escape the conclusion that in spite of the counsel for the respondents making repeated statements in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. This is under a belief (possibly mistaken) that the State behaves like a gentleman and carries out its word. May be, in view of the conduct of the respondents, this concession which is granted to them by the court is misplaced and it ought to be revoked. Perhaps the entire notion of "gentlemanly conduct" is now outdated. But the statements which are taken from counsel appearing for the State or authorities of the State are equivalent to an undertaking given to court and there is a clear breach of such undertakings which was given to court in the present case. Moreover, in the present case the statements which were made in court were made in order to mislead the court, for other ulterior motives, and to prevent an interim order being pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e officers R. Sharma, D.A.R. Mansoori and S.D. Mehta. 9. It is also urged by Mr. Rege that the respondents have shown their bona fides by depositing the ornaments in court. The deposit of ornaments yesterday by the respondents at their request was merely an attempt on the part of the respondents to protect themselves. They have not purged themselves of contempt in any manner by getting the ornaments deposited in court. 10. After I dictated this order Mr. Rege now states that the respondents should be permitted to withdraw the gold and ornaments from the custody of the Prothonotary to enable them to return the same to the petitioner. Since the gold and ornaments have been deposited in court at the request of the respondents, the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
