<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (9) TMI 402 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285718</link>
    <description>Property may be attached in proclamation proceedings only if it belongs to the proclaimed person; property proved to belong to a third party or family member cannot be brought within Section 83 merely because the proclaimed person resides there. On the facts stated, the claimant established ownership and no evidence showed any interest of the proclaimed person, so attachment and refusal to release the seized articles were illegal. The police were also under a mandatory duty to forward the seizure inventory to the Magistrate without delay, and repeated non-compliance without explanation amounted to breach of duty. The application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, release of the seized articles was directed, and compensation was awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:52:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 402 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285718</link>
      <description>Property may be attached in proclamation proceedings only if it belongs to the proclaimed person; property proved to belong to a third party or family member cannot be brought within Section 83 merely because the proclaimed person resides there. On the facts stated, the claimant established ownership and no evidence showed any interest of the proclaimed person, so attachment and refusal to release the seized articles were illegal. The police were also under a mandatory duty to forward the seizure inventory to the Magistrate without delay, and repeated non-compliance without explanation amounted to breach of duty. The application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, release of the seized articles was directed, and compensation was awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>