ANSAL THEATRES CLUBOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Uphaar cinema premises should be released in favour of the owner the appellant herein.

(2.) Mr Manu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that CBI has not during the course of investigation seized the premises in dispute nor has any seizure memo been placed on record either before the trial court or the first appellate court or even before this Court. He points out that although the premises should have been released no sooner the trial concluded, the trial court did not pass a formal order on the subject because of some inadvertence. When the matter was taken up before the High Court, an application for release was no doubt made and argued but since the appeal was transferred to another Hon'ble Judge, orders on the application were not pronounced. An application filed before the High Court after the disposal of

(3.) It is in the above backdrop that Mr Sharma prayed for a direction for release of the cinema, for according to him there was neither a valid and lawful seizure of the premises nor was the property in question liable to be seized or taken over by CBI. Even so, CBI had according to Mr Sharma prevented the owners from entering the premises and posted guards to prevent ingress and egress from the same.