9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,80,000 extorted by the search party may be ordered to be returned to the petitioners forthwith; (d) that the restraint order under section 132(3) in respect of the premises at 605, Hemkunt Tower, 6, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, may be directed to be withdrawn by the respondents forthwith and the seals be removed to enable the petitioners to resume their business; (e) that due cost and compensation may be suitably awarded to the petitioners for all the harassment and hardships caused to them by the respondents; and (f) that any other order or direction may be passed in favour of the petitioners as it may deem fit and proper. However, in the course of arguments Mr. Bajpai additionally prayed that the petitioner be permitted to amend the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the business of the Kalras. It is also his submission that the authorisation under section 132 did not extend the search and seizure operation pertaining to the petitioners' premises and property; and that their names and premises had been added in the duration of the search. In this regard the original files pertaining to this exercise, coded as "Operation Desert Fox", were produced before us for our perusal. There is not even an iota in support of the allegations made by Mr. Bajpai on behalf of the petitioners. From a reading of the file presented to us by learned counsel for the respondents, from the inception the petitioners were inherently within the contemplation of the respondents, even prior to the search, as their activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason that it was not concealed income and has been duly reflected in the books of account maintained by the petitioners. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondents, has taken us through the interrogation conducted in the case. On a reading thereof, prima facie, it appears that the contention of the petitioners is not correct that adequate evidence had been shown to the respondents that the said sum was duly accounted for. On the fateful day of the search, i.e., May 9, 2002, the petitioners undertook to produce books of account pertaining to R. K. International and Khosla Transport Co. by 4 p.m. However, the same could not be produced by the petitioners until 7.40 p.m. Thereafter, the petitioners mentioned that the books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
