Petitioner entitled to seized jewelry with bank guarantee, exceptions apply.

The court decided that petitioner No.2 could claim possession of jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 by providing a bank guarantee equal to their value. Petitioner No.2 was entitled to certain jewelleries without a bank guarantee as per a CBDT circular. The requirement of a bank guarantee was limited to jewelleries exceeding a specified weight. Petitioner No.2 was allowed to possess jewelleries within the weight limit without a bank guarantee but had to undertake not to sell or transfer them without permission. Specific directions were given for the disposal of the matter, including the potential handover of a mobile phone upon application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Ownership dispute over seized jewelleries
2. Entitlement of petitioner No.2 to seized jewelleries
3. Requirement of bank guarantee for handing over jewelleries
4. Directions for the disposal of the matter

Ownership Dispute Over Seized Jewelleries:
The judgment revolves around a case where certain jewelleries were seized from the premises of different petitioners. It is highlighted that the jewelleries seized from the premises of petitioner No.1 were claimed by petitioner No.2 as her own. The respondents initially raised an objection to handing over the jewelleries to petitioner No.2 due to an ownership dispute. However, it was eventually decided that petitioner No.2 could take possession of the jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 on Supurdgi by furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the value of the jewelleries. This decision was made considering the peculiar facts of the case and the claim made by petitioner No.2 regarding the ownership of the jewelleries.

Entitlement of Petitioner No.2 to Seized Jewelleries:
The circular of the CBDT was referred to in the judgment to establish the entitlement of petitioner No.2 to the jewelleries seized on a particular date. It was mentioned that as per the circular, petitioner No.2 was entitled to the jewelleries up to a specified weight without the necessity of furnishing a bank guarantee. The judgment acknowledged this entitlement and allowed petitioner No.2 to take possession of the jewelleries on Supurdgi up to the specified weight without the requirement of a bank guarantee.

Requirement of Bank Guarantee for Handing Over Jewelleries:
The respondents initially insisted on the furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the jewelleries for handing them over to petitioner No.2. However, considering the circumstances and the claim made by petitioner No.2, it was decided that a bank guarantee would be required only for jewelleries exceeding a certain weight. For jewelleries within the specified weight limit, petitioner No.2 was permitted to take possession without the need for a bank guarantee, subject to filing an undertaking not to sell or transfer the jewelleries without prior permission.

Directions for the Disposal of the Matter:
In conclusion, the judgment provided specific directions for the disposal of the matter. It was ordered that petitioner No.2 could take possession of the jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 on Supurdgi by furnishing a bank guarantee for the value of the jewelleries. Additionally, petitioner No.2 was required to submit an undertaking to the respondents regarding the non-sale or transfer of the jewelleries without prior permission. The judgment also allowed for the consideration of a request for the handover of a mobile phone belonging to petitioner No.2, subject to an application being made to the respondents for the same.

---