Lakshman Saraf vs The Senior Intelligence Officer on 8 July, 2024
17. Although, Mr. Bag, by placing reliance on the judgment delivered
by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Valerius
Industries (supra) and Meenakshi Trendz (supra) has attempted
to identify the circumstances under which the orders of attachment
could be issued and has attempted to claim that the present case
does not fall within the exception provided in the said judgment for
the respondents either to pass or continue with the orders of
attachment, I may, however, notice that in the instant case, it is the
petitioner who at the first instance did not come forward to file any
objection in terms of Rule 159(5) of the said Rules. From the copies
of the envelopes bearing postal endorsement, it would appear that
the petitioner could not be located. Interestingly, the petitioner for
one entire year from the date of issuance of the provisional
attachment orders dated 3rd February, 2023 and 10th February,
2023, chose not to apply in terms of Rule 159(5) of the said Rules.
Had the petitioner applied, the petitioner could have raised all
objections before the respondents and the respondents could have,
in such case, not got an opportunity to claim that the petitioner
was avoiding service of notice, which prompted them to issue fresh
provisional orders of attachment.