Bombay High Court
Svaryu Energy Limited ( Formerly Refex ... vs Union Of India Thr. Its Secretary ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
2024:BHC-AS:31096-DB
TAUSEEF Tauseef 22-WP.10765.2024.doc
LAIQUEE
FAROOQUI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
TAUSEEF LAIQUEE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAROOQUI
Date: 2024.08.06
13:16:42 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.10765 OF 2024
Svaryu Energy Limited
(Formerly Refex Energy Ltd.)
through its Director Arun Mehta ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
through its Secretary Department of
Revenue & Anr. ...Respondents
__________ Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w. Mr. R. K. Tomar, Mr. Gaurav Sarfare, Mr. Ankit Dhindale and Mr. Avinash Limbola for Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
DATED : 5th AUGUST 2024
P.C.
1. Dr. Kantawala states that the primary prayer is for provisional release of the seized goods covered under the impugned seizure memos dated 1st February 2024 and 14th February 2024 on such terms and conditions as the Court may impose or the concerned authority may impose.
2. Mr. Mishra states that an application for considering provisional release of the goods covered under the seizure memos is required to be made which Petitioner has not made. Dr. Kantawala 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 15:04:19 ::: Tauseef 22-WP.10765.2024.doc responded by saying the petition itself be considered as an application alongwith documents annexed to the petition and the petition be disposed.
3. Mr. Mishra states that the petition will be looked into as an application for provisional release of the seized goods and orders will be passed in accordance with law after hearing Petitioner. Statement accepted.
4. Therefore, Respondent No.2 shall consider the petition itself as an application as mentioned above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five workings in advance.
5. Petition disposed.
6. We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 15:04:19 :::