TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court allows authorities to handle unclaimed seized goods, emphasizes ownership rights</h1> <h3>SARVESHWAR SHYAMBIHARI MITTAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT</h3> The Gujarat High Court disposed of the petition as not pressed regarding the release of a seized vehicle and goods. The petitioner showed disinterest in ... Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - case of Revenue is that the respondents have no objection if the petition is disposed of as not pressed - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of as not pressed by clarifying that, it shall be open for the respondent authorities to take appropriate action in connection with the goods seized by them on 31.07.2019, since the owner of the goods has not come forward for release of the goods. Issues:Release of vehicle and goods seized by authorities, petitioner's disinterest in taking custody of goods, disposal of petition as not pressed, ownership of goods not claimed by the owner.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court addressed the issue of the release of a vehicle and goods seized by the authorities. The Assistant Government Pleader informed the court that the vehicle, along with the goods, would be released by a specified date. Subsequently, the petitioner's advocate stated that the vehicle had been released, and the petitioner was not interested in taking custody of the goods. As a result, the petitioner did not press the petition. The Assistant Government Pleader confirmed that the goods were still in the custody of the authorities.The court disposed of the petition as not pressed, allowing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action regarding the goods seized since the owner had not come forward to claim them. The judgment clarified that the authorities were free to deal with the goods as necessary. The notice was discharged, and no costs were awarded in this case.This judgment highlights the importance of ownership rights and the responsibility of owners to claim seized goods. It also emphasizes the discretion given to authorities to handle unclaimed goods appropriately. The court's decision to dispose of the petition as not pressed reflects the petitioner's lack of interest in pursuing the matter further after the release of the vehicle.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
