TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e possession of one of the noticees at Kolkata in course of search and seizure in question while petitioners are claiming the same as their own money. It is well settled principle of law that High Court in exercise of its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not investigate and adjudicate the title or ownership of any disputed immovable or movable properties and declare the ownership of the same in favour of one party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the parties and in view of the fact that this Writ Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned show-cause notice and prayed for quashing of the same are by none of the noticees and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Special Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh, Adjudicating Authority, against those third parties/noticees. It appears from record that those persons whose offices/residence were searched and seizure was made by the Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur, are located in different parts of the country including one of the noticees at his residence at Kolkata in whose residence petitioners are claiming to be living with him at the time of search and seizure in question. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned show-cause-notice dated 3 rd February, 2022 being Annexure P-8 at page 61 of the writ petition, it appears that noticees referred therein were asked to give response to the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the residence of Sri Gopal Krishna Banka at Kolkata, who is the husband of the petitioner No.1 and two other petitioners, who are the daughters of Sri Gopal Krishna Banka, belonged to the petitioners. Petitioners further contend that the said seized cash amount have already been disclosed in the Income Tax Return of the petitioner No.1 which is highly disputed by the respondents since in Panchnama it has been specifically recorded that the seized amount in question was recovered from the possession of the said Sri Gopal Krishna Banka at his residence and which is subject matter of pending adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority at Chandigarh. Mr. Chakrabarti, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned show-cause notice by the Enforcement authorities at Rajasthan nor the said complaint before the adjudication proceedings pending at Chandigarh. He also submits that from nowhere it appears from record annexed to the writ petition that even those noticees have responded to the impugned show-cause notice which they were to respond within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned show-cause notice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that writ Court in exercise of its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not investigate the ownership of such disputed amount of cash money seized from the possession of one of the noticees at Kolkata in cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
