ANANDAPADMANABHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN CMP No. 11713 of 1993 came up for hearing, it was submitted that the original petition itself may be heard and disposed of. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.R.K. Nair, counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and counsel for the third respondent were heard.

(2.) THE original petition is for the issue of a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release the gold ornaments of the petitioner which were taken possession of by the officers of respondents 1 and 2 from the premises of the third respondent during a raid conducted in the premises. According to the petitioner, the article shown as serial No. 70 in the list attached to the panchanama prepared by the officers of respondents 1 and 2 are gold ornaments belonging to him and pledged by him with the third respondent for taking a loan of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner has a case that the third respondent has no objection to the said articles being released to him as can be seen from the copy of the letter, Ext. P3, written on behalf of the third respondent to the first respondent on 6th May, 1993. The prayer of the petitioner, therefore, is that he may be allowed to get the gold ornaments belonging to him released on his depositing the principal and interest due from him to the third respondent, before respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, as far as the Department is concerned, the Department had offered to release the entire articles to the third respondent on its furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 but that the third respondent was not willing to adopt that course. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Department can release the articles to the petitioner on the strength of the letter Ext. P3 issued by the third respondent only if the amount due from the petitioner to the third respondent on the loan transaction including interest is deposited by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. The learned counsel submits that there should not be direction for the release of the goods to the petitioner without the amount being deposited to the account of the 3rd respondent with the first respondent.