9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the respondents to return the gold ornaments seized from the petitioner on 23-12-1985. The petition is directed against the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) 36, Gandhi Nagar Digra, Varanasi who have been arrayed as respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. As per the writ assertions the petitioner Smt. Gopi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the admission stage two separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 no attempt has been made to justify the seizure. The relief claimed by the petitioner for return of articles is also not resisted on merits. The only objection taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o is now claiming the disputed articles as her own property through this petition. 6. Having considered the matter carefully. We find no substance in the case put forward by the respondent No. 2. 7. In the writ petition there is a clear averment that the locker was initially hired by the petitioner and her husband and their son Ashok Puri in the year 1982. The petitioner's husband died in the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his name be deleted from the array of parties. It is further asserted that the articles which were seized by respondent No. 2 are liable for seizure u/s 8 (2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the notification issued u/s 13 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and respondent No. 1 may be given liberty to take action under the said provisions in case, this Court decides to release th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
