Premises Sealed After Search Operation to be De-sealed with Petitioner Present During Process

The HC addressed a dispute involving sealed business premises and godown. The court ordered de-sealing of both locations following a search operation, with the petitioner permitted to be present during the process - at business premises on one date and godown on another. An additional advocate could attend but not interfere with proceedings. Respondents were granted five weeks to file counter-affidavits. The matter was scheduled for a future hearing date, with the court allowing physical or hybrid hearing modalities as requested by the parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Physical/Hybrid Hearing Modality
2. Presence of Petitioner at Business Premises and Godown
3. De-sealing of Premises
4. Filing of Counter-affidavits by Respondents
5. Next Date of Hearing

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the court noting the appearance of counsels for both the petitioner and respondents and the agreement for a physical or hybrid hearing as per the request made. This sets the tone for the proceedings and indicates the willingness of both parties to engage in the hearing process through agreed modalities.

2. The court then addresses the issue of the petitioner's presence at the business premises and godown for search purposes. The respondent's counsel agrees to the petitioner's presence for the search and assures that both premises will be de-sealed post the search. The petitioner's counsel also confirms agreement to this modality, ensuring cooperation during the search process at the specified locations on designated dates.

3. Specific details regarding the locations where the petitioner is required to be present are provided in the judgment. The court mandates the petitioner's presence at the business premises on one date and at the godown on another date, facilitating a systematic and organized search process. Additionally, another advocate is permitted to be present during the search but with a clear directive not to interfere in the proceedings.

4. The judgment sets a future date for the matter to be listed, allowing time for the respondents to file their counter-affidavits within the next five weeks. This procedural step ensures that both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence formally before the court, maintaining the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

5. Lastly, the judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the digitally signed copy of the order for all involved parties, indicating the significance of following the court's directives promptly and efficiently. The mention of the next date of hearing further underscores the continuity and progression of the legal proceedings in a structured manner, ensuring timely resolution of the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various procedural and substantive aspects related to the case, including hearing modalities, presence during search operations, filing of affidavits, and scheduling of future proceedings, reflecting a comprehensive and meticulous approach by the court in dealing with the legal issues at hand.

---