TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Office, Ludhiana where the unit of the private company/petitioner no. 2 is situated and engaged in its business. It is submitted that in view of the conceded cooperation by the officers of the petitioner company in the pending investigations, the impugned complaint and summoning orders are required to be set aside as concededly the documents were furnished before the officials at Ahmedabad, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shabh Kapoor,Advocate For The Respondents : Mr.RK Handa, Advocate ORDER Jaswant Singh, J. Petitioner no. 1 is Director of M/s Sai Bhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. , while petitioner no. 2 is a proprietary concern namely M/s Best Exports (for short petitioner company) which is engaged in manufacture and export of readymade g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (P- 12) was issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Petitioners in the instant writ petition have sought the quashing of the complaint dated 8. 6. 2017(P-11) and the summoning order dated 8. 6. 2017 (P-12) primarily on the ground of jurisdiction and also Notification dated 7. 3. 2002 (P-1) whereby jurisdiction of officers working in the DRI at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DRI had sought time to seek instructions with regard to withdrawing of the said complaint at Ahmedabad, the proceedings of which are not warranted in view of the subsequent developments. Counsel for the DRI states that investigations have been transferred to Ludhiana and he further undertakes to get the aforesaid complaint at Ahmedabad withdrawn by moving appropriate applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
