Dismissed

Amarjit Singh Gill v. the Union of India -through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2009WP/3683/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal attachment of the petitioner's properties. Noting that the seals and attachment orders had already been lifted by the Revenue department, the Court found nothing further to examine and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed off as nothing further survived after the respondents admitted to lifting the seals and attachment.

Amarjit Singh Gill Vs the Union of India -through the… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3683 OF 2009

¶3

 Amarjit Singh Gill ...Petitioner.
 V/s.
 Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶4

 Mr.R.K.Agrawal , adv. for the Petitioner.
 Mr.Abhay Ahooja, adv. for the Respondents.

¶5

 CORAM: F.I.Rebello &
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
 DATE : 6th April, 2009.

¶6

 P.C.:

¶7

 1. Petitioner has approached this Court contending

¶8

 that his properties have been illegally attached.
 Properties consist of 17th Maruti Chambers, Ground floor,
 Kalamboli, New Bombay and 209 Maruti Chambers, Second
 floor, Kalamboli, New Bombay which belong to the
 petitioner. A reply has been filed on behalf of the
 Revenue by Shri S.R.Malik. Exhibit 17 is the letter dated
 26th March, 2009 whereby Daljit Singh Gill had been
 informed that the seal put on shop nos.209 and 210 is
 lifted. However, attachment would remain in force.
 Similarly in respect of shop no.17, seal and attachment are
 lifted.

¶9

 : 2 :

¶10

 2. Our attention is also invited to Exhibit 12 which
 is the order of attachment dated 4-3-2009 which shows that
 the shop no.17 was attached and Exhibit 13 which shows that
 shop no.210 was attached. Both are addressed to Shri
 Daljit Singh Gill.

¶11

 3. Attention is also invited to the report dated
 1.4.2009 which shows that officers of the respondent had
 visited premises to serve letter dated 26.3.2009 regarding
 lifting of seal of premises and letter dated 31.3.2009
 regarding attachment and sealing of the premises. It is
 also mentioned therein that Mr.Amarjit Singh, elder brother
 of Daljit Singh was present and refused to accept the
 letter.

¶12

 4. We are not much concerned with the controversy now
 as admittedly, the seal on two premises bearing nos.209 and
 210 have been lifted. Counsel for the Revenue explains
 that so far as shop no.209 is concerned, it was never
 attached but because there was common entrance to shop
 nos.209 and 210, a seal was put to that common entrance.
 Seal as such, has been removed. Considering the stand of
 the respondents that shop no.209 had never been attached

¶13

 : 3 :

¶14

 and so far as shop no.17 is concerned, attachment has been
 lifted, nothing further survives in the petition and it is
 accordingly, disposed off.

¶15

(F.I.Rebello, J.)

¶16

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

Amarjit Singh Gill v. the Union of India -through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh Gill v. the Union of India -through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gujarat Park Hotels Ltd. Vs Suman Resorts India Ltd.

M/S. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs ( Export) , Raigad Vs Metallic Bellows (I) Pvt. Ltd. Tamil Nadu

The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune Ii, Pune Vs M/S. Bespask , Kolhapur