TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Law. There is no explanation at all as to the circumstances in which the property of the petitioner has been seized. - writ application is disposed of by directing the respondents-authorities to return the cash seized on February 22, 2011 along with interest that has accrued on the aforesaid sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of communication of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of ₹ 10,50,000/- was seized. 3. According to the petitioners, the full amount of ₹ 10,50,000/- was duly reflected in the cash book of the petitioners lying at their office premises. Particulars of the cash balance as per cash book on February 22, 2011 have been given in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition, cash balance appears to have been in excess of ₹ 10,00,000/-. 4. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otes were seized. 6. This writ petition appears to have been filed on March 28, 2011. The matter was called on for hearing on April 8, 2011. On that day, the matter was adjourned till April 20, 2011. On April 28, 2011, this Court, directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within June 10, 2011. Affidavit-in-reply was directed to be filed within June 17, 2011 and the matter w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjourned on the prayer of the learned lawyer appearing for the respondents. Today, the learned Counsel submits that he has only been briefed yesterday and he has not been given any instructions. This Court regrets its inability to concede to any further prayer for adjournment when so many adjournments have already been granted. Time to file affidavit-in-opposition expired way back on June 10, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
