Petitioner sought release of seized diamonds after exercising an option in an Order-in-Original within the prescribed 120 days, but got no response. The court directed the appellate authority and third respondent to dispose of the pending appeal and the petitioner's requests expeditiously, leaving contentions open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ppn
1 905.wp-5147.24.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.12.1910:59:28 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.5147 OF 2024
Vitraag India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms. Dishya Pandey a/w Stebin Mathew for the petitioners. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Rupesh Dubey for the respondent-UOI.
_______________________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATE : 18 December 2024
P.C.:-
ppn 2 905.wp-5147.24.docx
costs.
(Jitendra Jain, J .) ( M. S. Sonak, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents must consider the petitioner's timely communications seeking to pay the redemption fine and secure release of seized diamonds despite the pending appeal.
Vitraag India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Union of India & Ors.
M. S. Sonak
Jitendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
