1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Authority directed to decide representations on redemption and release of seized gold, after hearing parties, within three months</h1> The HC disposed of the writ petition concerning redemption and release of seized gold articles by issuing a limited procedural direction. The Court did ... Redemption of the seized articles - release of gold articles - direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representations preferred by the 2nd petitioner with notice to the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent and to pass orders with a prescribed time limit - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations preferred by the 2nd petitioner with notice to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition disposed off. Writ petition sought a mandamus restraining customs authorities (respondents 1 and 2) from releasing seized gold articles weighing 4346.89 grams to the 3rd respondent, and directing them to consider the petitioner's objection and claim before acting on the 3rd respondent's offer of redemption. The petitioners contended that Ext.P1 order had already been challenged in appeal under the Customs Act and that, regarding redemption of the seized articles, Exts.P3 and P4 representations had been submitted by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent. Given the pendency of these representations, the court held that the limited prayer for consideration of the representations could be granted. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent 'to take up, consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations' submitted by the 2nd petitioner, after giving notice to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, within three months of receipt of the judgment.