Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60.OS.WPL.31675.2025 dated 04.09.2019, in case of Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors vs. Mr. Rajendra and Ors in Notice of Motion No. 481 of 2016 wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court had directed release of jewellery on furnishing of a bank guarantee. She submitted that to safeguard the interest of Revenue, similar conditions may be imposed in the present case.

14. Mr. Ranganayakulu, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5, referring to the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 5, submitted that the order of Respondent No. 5 is a reasoned order and need not be interfered with. He submitted that the Petitioners have failed to explain to the satisfaction of the Officer that the seized jewellery belonged to Petitioner No.

19. The reliance by Ms. Nagaraj on the two decisions of this court is misplaced. The judgment in case of M. N. Navale (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as first of all, it does not deal with a case of seizure of stock-in-trade and secondly, from paragraph 2 of the said order, it is clear that in the said case, the Petitioner's themselves wanted the seized goods to be released on providing of an unconditional bank guarantee for the value of jewellery. Therefore, the said judgment will not assist the Revenue. The second judgment is in case of Echjay (supra). Again, in the said matter, the Petitioners were prepared to give a bank guarantee for the release of gold jewellery that belonged to the family members of the directors and the Court was not dealing with a case of December 8, 2025 Sufiyan Syed - P.A.