The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition claiming ownership of cash seized by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Chandigarh, for want of locus standi and jurisdiction.
The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh has conducted search operations in and issued notice to 24 persons residing at different parts of India, some are in Chennai, some are in Jaipur and some are in Kolkata, by claiming that the cash money amounting to Rs.11,50,000/- which was seized from the residence of Sri Gopal Krishna Banka at Kolkata, who is the husband of one of the petitioners and two other petitioners, who are the daughters of Sri Gopal Krishna Banka, belonged to the petitioners.
The Petitioners contended that the said seized cash amount have already been disclosed in the Income Tax Return of 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. The petitioners sought for an order to release the same.
Considering the petition, Justice Md. Nizamuddin held 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 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,” the Court said.
Dismissing the petition, the Court held that “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 noticees have not challenged the same which has been issued by the Enforcement Authority at Jaipur in Rajasthan and none of the noticees have filed this Writ Petitoin challenging the impugned adjudication proceedings in question arising out of the impugned search and seizure proceedings out of which impugned adjudication proceedings are pending at Chandigarh and in view of the fact that the highly disputed question of ownership of the seized cash amount in question is involved which is a part of the said pending adjudication proceeding at Chandigarh which the petitioners want release by the order of this writ court, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
