TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled, in a single proceeding, to invoke both the jurisdiction for interim custody of property and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for return of seized cash and for lifting the freezing of bank accounts.
Analysis: Relief under the provision for custody of property is available before the criminal court before which the property has been produced during inquiry or trial. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to bypass that statutory course where no such application has been moved before the competent criminal court. The currency seized from the premises was not shown to be susceptible to speedy or natural decay, and its return was not expedient in the circumstances. The bank balances standing in the individual names of respondents had not been seized and produced before any criminal court, and the freezing order had been issued under the income-tax enactment. The existence of prima facie material for offences arising out of the money circulation scheme and the possibility of confiscation at the end of trial also weighed against the grant of interim release.
Conclusion: The petitions for return of the seized amount and for release of the frozen bank accounts were not maintainable or fit to be granted, and the relief was refused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
