MULTITEK ENGINEERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these appeals the appellants are questioning a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in two batches of writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge though found the attachment of all bank accounts of the appellants, by the Director of Revenue Intelligence as on 30th June, 2010 was not justified in law nor supported in law, nevertheless directed the respondent to raise attachment by imposing condition to safeguard the interest of the respondent. Appellant was to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 2 crores put together, in respect of bank accounts, subject matter of two batches of writ petitions, as the writ petitioners' establishments are all owned by one individual, namely T. Devaraj. Learned Single has further permitted the appellants by way of an alternative condition, to offer security for the said sum. However, the appellants have pursued the matter in appeals contending inter alia that the attachment is not justified in law and that it well settled in law by high authority that the Customs officials or officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, while exercising powers under the Customs Act, 1962 do not have power to attach bank accounts, at the stage of investigation, unless they are able to show the subject matter is one liable for confiscation; that there is no liability fastened on the appellants determining the amount due under any adjudication order, commensurate to the balance in the bank account for a total amount of Rs. 58 lakhs and some amounts in other Bank accounts being held up due to attachment has affected business of the appellants for about two years, which is per se unreasonable and not a proper exercise of power by a public authority assuming for arguments sake, such a power is available to the attaching officer etc.

(2.) We have heard Sri. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Ravi Raju, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Sri Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on the following decisions: