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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Writ petition dismissed due to lack of timely ownership claim for seized amount, emphasizing legal procedures</h1> <h3>JAHUBARUNNEESA Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> JAHUBARUNNEESA Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 72 (Mad.) Issues:1. Writ of mandamus for the return of seized amount2. Application of Sections 124 and 110(2) of the Customs Act3. Ownership of the seized amount4. Claim made by the petitioner5. Adjudication proceedings and the need for a show cause noticeDetailed Analysis:The judgment concerns a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the return of a seized amount of Rs. 54,600. The seizure took place during a search operation at certain premises, and the ownership of the seized amount is disputed. The petitioner, who claims the amount belongs to her, argues that a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act should have been issued to her. The respondents counter that no claim was made by the petitioner upon learning of the seizure, and therefore, no show cause notice was necessary. The court notes that the petitioner did not establish making a claim regarding the ownership of the seized amount after the seizure.The learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the statement made by the fourth respondent regarding the ownership of the amount was not clear, and the petitioner failed to prove her claim by not making a timely assertion after the seizure. The court emphasized that the lack of a specific claim by the petitioner regarding the ownership of the seized amount, coupled with the ongoing adjudication proceedings related to the seizure, made it inappropriate to delve into the disputed question of ownership in the writ petition. The petitioner relied on a passbook to support her claim, but the court refrained from further investigation due to the pending adjudication proceedings.Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to establish her claim during the adjudication proceedings. The judgment highlights the importance of timely and explicit claims by parties in cases involving the seizure of assets, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and the resolution of disputes through appropriate channels such as adjudication proceedings.