2005 (10) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e by respondent No. 3 qua the machineries specified in the schedule to the orders. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the machineries in question have been purchased from respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. According to the petitioners, the machineries were initially purchased and owned by respondent No. 4 since calendar year 1998 and were used for the purposes of business of respondent No. 4. That the said machineries have been sold as scrap as per invoice appearing at Annexure-C by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners. That, for no fault of the petitioners, the said machineries have been detained and seized by respondent No. 3. 3.Mr. Y.N. Ravani appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He has place....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aults which are exclusive to respondent No. 4. The Court is not required to render any opinion as to whether the allegations against respondent No. 4 are justified or not. Proceeding on the assumption, that whatever is stated is correct, it would apply only qua respondent No. 4, and for this, in absence of any factual foundation to establish a link between the petitioners and respondent No. 4, or an averment supported by any evidence to the effect that the transaction is not at an arm's length, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer by detention and seizure of the machineries of the petitioners. Though a faint attempt is made by stating that there was connivance between respondent No. 4 and the petitioners, except for bald averment, there....