Lawyer Allegedly Withholds Gold Bar After Customs Release: Delhi HC says it Private Dispute, Refers to Mediation [Read Order]
The court dismissed a petition seeking release of two gold bars seized by Customs, noting that the gold had already been released to the petitioner’s authorised lawyer after payment of about ₹7 lakh
lawyer - Taxscan
lawyer - Taxscan
The High Court of Delhi observed that the dispute, in which the lawyer allegedly withheld the gold citing unpaid dues, was a private dispute between the petitioner and his lawyer and referred the matter to mediation.
Jakir Husain, petitioner-assessee, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking release of two gold bars weighing 233 grams, seized by Customs at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 24th December 2023.
He had applied for their release on 27th May 2024, claiming no Show Cause Notice had been issued. On 17th July 2025, he sent a reminder through his advocate, which was allegedly withdrawn.
The department counsel, stated that the petition hid key facts, as the petitioner’s authorised advocate, had appeared before Customs on 24th July 2025, when the gold bars were released to him after payment of about Rs. 7,00,000.
Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav was present and stated that he had been in continuous contact with the petitioner’s relatives and had assisted in obtaining documents from the Bureau of Immigration for the petitioner’s emergency certificate. He further stated that the gold bars were in his possession and that he was willing to return them upon clearance of his dues.
The petitioner, present in person, confirmed that Mr. Yadav had been his lawyer and was duly authorised by him, but expressed his decision not to continue with his services. Observing that the issue was essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and his lawyer, and that the petitioner was aware of the release but had not disclosed it in the petition, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Given that the dispute involved the petitioner and his own lawyers, the Court referred the matter to mediation, appointing Advocate Mr. Rajesh Jain as mediator with a fee of ₹1,00,000, to be shared equally by the petitioner and Mr. Yadav. It was directed that if mediation failed, the parties could pursue remedies available under law.
The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
