Disposed

Janata Gymkhana v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2009WP/2034/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for return of seized property. The Court directed the petitioner to communicate details of persons claiming the seized gold and valuables to the police for verification and determination by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to communicate names and addresses of persons claiming seized valuables to the police.

Janata Gymkhana Vs the State of Maharashtra — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2034 OF 2009

Janata Gymkhana

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.V.T.Tulpule i/by Ms.Nisha Parab & Mr.Harshad Khandalkar for the Petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶12

A.A.SAYED, JJ

¶13

DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2009

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard. Janata Gymkhana, the petitioner has filed this petition impugning the decision of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai rejecting the application of the petitioner which was filed by Jairam Shetty, the proprietor of Laxmi Jewellers and the Secretary of the Janata Gymkhana, which was confirmed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 18.7.2009 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for return of the property on the ground that the property has been seized under the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, 1946 and for that purpose it is the Registrar appointed under the said Act who has the power to return the property u/s.13B(3) of the Act.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will direct the

¶17

¶18

persons who are the owners of the property seized by the police in the purported raid conducted by them at Janata Gymkhana to appear before the Competent Authority.

¶19

The learned APP submits that the list of persons whose property viz.gold ornaments and the valuables were found in possession of Jairam Shetty, Secretary of Janata Gymkhana has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner, and that in the course of investigation the police have called upon the petitioner to inform such persons as they are required for the purpose of investigation in the course of verification, but there has been no response from the petitioner.

¶20

We therefore dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to communicate the names and addresses of all such persons to the police so that the police can verify their credentials vis-a-vis their claims to the valuables which have been seized by the police, and that would facilitate the competent authority u/s.13B of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 to decide their claim expeditiously.

¶21

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(J.N.PATEL, J)

¶23

(A.A.SAYED, J)

Janata Gymkhana v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janata Gymkhana v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrapal Khubiram Rajoriya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta R. Tiwatane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Velu Devender Vs Semthikumar Devender and Ors.

Anil Vishwambhar Ghante Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sarubai Dattu Bajbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay H. Gosaliya Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ors.