Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2202 1989 SLD 2202 (1989) 176 ITR 73
Kerala High Court

K. SUKUMARAN.J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

V.V. Muhammed Kunhi

v.

Venugopalan K. Nambiar

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Petitioner had pledged some articles with V which were seized in a raid conducted on V's place and V had filed a writ for return of such articles which was pending - Whether during pendency of writ by V, it was not necessary to entertain petitioner's writ for return of seized articles - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner had pledged some articles with one V. The Income-tax Department had conducted a search and effected seizure of the articles from V. Proceedings were going on between the department and V in relation to various matters in the course of the action initiated under the Act. The writ petition in which V had sought the return of the articles so seized, was pending before the Court. The petitioner filed the present writ claiming the return of the articles seized from V. HELD The petitioner did not have a cause of action directed against the Income-tax Department. The larger contention that the Income-tax Department had no jurisdiction to seize the articles of a stranger assumed that the articles really belonged to a stranger. That was a matter which had yet to be adjudicated. If the petitioner had got a case that he was the owner of the articles, he would have necessarily to establish the title over the same, initially. The possible remedy then would be to institute a suit against the pledgee and bringing, if necessary, other parties, including the department, on the party array. These proceedings could possibly be obviated if the petitioner awaited the final disposal of the writ petition of V. Therefore, the instant writ was liable to be dismissed. C.P. Damodaran Nayar for the Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Sukumaran, J.-The petitioner had pledged some articles, according to him, with the first respondent, Venugopalan K.Nambiar. The Income-tax Department had conducted a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492