UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10-9-99 passed by the ld. Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P. No. 2232/99. The writ petitioners who are respondents herein made prayers inter alia for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release and/or return cash of Rs. 17 lakhs with interest (c) 30%, the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 30% damages of Rs. 20 lakhs and the interest @ 30% on Rs. 80,000/-upto the date of return upto 19th May, 1997 and to cancel or rescind any notification, order of circular to that effect and also prayed for release of books of accounts and other documents seized on 15/16-1-1996. The writ petitioners also prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order/circular/notification issued relating to the said seizure of the cash amount of books of accounts. The writ petitioners also prayed for writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from withholding the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs security of Rs. 10,000/- and from retaining the books of accounts and cash seized on 16-1-96.

(2.) The ld. Single Judge by judgment and order which is impugned in this appeal directed the Commissioner of Central Excise to refund Rs. 17 lakhs together with interest @ 30% P.A. from the date of seizure till date of payment and also refund the security to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said sum. The ld. Single Judge also directed the respondents to pay interest @ 12% P.A. on the sum of Rs. 80,000/-from the date of seizure till the date of refund. The ld. Single Judge also directed that on receipt of the aforesaid amount together with interest the writ petitioners shall keep the sum in a short term fixed deposit account with ANZ Grindlays Bank, Church Lane Branch and the same shall not be appropriate till 31st December, 1999 or until further direction which may pass by the Supreme Court if any action is taken. The Bank concerned shall not allow encashment before December 31, 1199. In the event no action is taken by December 31, 1999 or no restrain order is passed by the Supreme Court, then the writ petitioner would be at liberty to appropriate the aforesaid amounts. The writ petitioner shall also keep this security in their custody and shall not part with the sum to any third party until December 31, 1999, or until further order which may be passed by the Supreme Court.

(3.) The writ petitioner would be at liberty to take further action for damage since the Writ Court is not competent to pass any order on the question of damages allegedly suffered by the writ petitioner. This order was under challenged before the ld. Single Judge.