https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468069 Ownership of seized jewellery and wrist-watches was not proved by the appellants, so the retention order was sustained. The Tribunal held that articles recovered from premises connected with the main accused could not be released on bare assertions that they were streedhan or personal belongings, especially where no documentary proof of purchase or other reliable title evidence was produced. The surrounding circumstances and statements on record also did not support the ownership claims. In the absence of credible proof of title, interference with the impugned order was unwarranted and the connected appeals failed. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468069 Ownership of seized jewellery and wrist-watches was not proved by the appellants, so the retention order was sustained. The Tribunal held that articles recovered from premises connected with the main accused could not be released on bare assertions that they were streedhan or personal belongings, especially where no documentary proof of purchase or other reliable title evidence was produced. The surrounding circumstances and statements on record also did not support the ownership claims. In the absence of credible proof of title, interference with the impugned order was unwarranted and the connected appeals failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468069