https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193982 Property documents seized during investigation were found to belong to the petitioner, and no acceptable reason was shown for their continued retention by the investigating agency. As the documents were not among those proposed to be relied on in the committal and supply-of-documents process, the High Court treated continued custody as unjustified and recognised the petitioner's protected right to hold them. Prior judicial directions in parallel proceedings also supported release. The court therefore directed return of the seized property documents through the trial court, subject to an undertaking to produce them whenever required. en-us Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:25:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193982 Property documents seized during investigation were found to belong to the petitioner, and no acceptable reason was shown for their continued retention by the investigating agency. As the documents were not among those proposed to be relied on in the committal and supply-of-documents process, the High Court treated continued custody as unjustified and recognised the petitioner's protected right to hold them. Prior judicial directions in parallel proceedings also supported release. The court therefore directed return of the seized property documents through the trial court, subject to an undertaking to produce them whenever required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193982