2006 (7) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r respondent No. 1. 3. The appeal was filed by the Union of Indian through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance and the Director of Revenue Intelligence and two others questioning the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court dated 14-10-2005. The High Court while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 held that the action of the appellants herein in preventing respondent n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed the judgment in favour of respondent No. 1 on 14-10-2005. A sum of Rs. 49,86,755.25 was seized by the appellants herein, which was in credit in the Bank Account of the first respondent with the second respondent. It appears that the first respondent, between 15-10-2005 and 29-10- 2005, has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 49,09,712/- leaving a balance of Rs. 75,043.25. The appellant filed the special le....