Disposed

James Karipat v. Chief Enforcement Officer

Kerala HC17 Feb 2010WP(C)/10900/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition partially, noting the sale deed had been returned. It directed respondents to return the remaining seized letters expeditiously, within three months, if available.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to return the 18 seized letters expeditiously, and in any event within three months from the date petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment.

James Karipat Vs Chief Enforcement Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 10900 of 2004(V)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------------

¶9

JAMES KARIPAT, RESIDING AT “CURVE LINK”, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, KOCHI-682 018

¶10

BY ADV. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

1. CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (FERA), POONKULAM, VELAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (FERA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.GEORGE JOSEPH, CGSC R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.10900/2004 V

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.14424/1999 DTD. 13/08/1999.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T-3/156/TVM/74 DTD. 26/08/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3: OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT P2.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.T-3/156/TVM/74 (PART) DTD. 8/09/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. NIL GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT.P4 LETTER.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/02/04 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.T-3/156/TVM/74(PART) DTD.8/09/1999 SENT BY E.VIJAYAKUMAR, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶33

----------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 10900 of 2004

¶34

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2010.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Pursuant to a search conducted by respondents on 3.7.1994, the originals of sale deed Nos.1388/74 and 1389/74 together with 18 letters were seized from the petitioner's residence. Thereupon, proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In that proceedings, penalty was imposed on the petitioner. On appeal, the quantum of penalty was reduced. After the proceedings came to an end, the petitioner approached the respondents for return of the documents seized from him. It appears the original of sale deed No.1389/74 in the name of the petitioner's brother Sri. K.A. John was released even before this writ petition was filed. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to release sale deed No.1388/74 of Ernakulam Sub Registry and the 18 letters seized from him.

¶37

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para 3 thereof it is stated that the original of sale deed No.1388/74 of Sub Registry, Ernakulam was returned to the

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 10900 of 2004

¶39

¶40

petitioner on 1.4.2004 and that it has been received by him on 5.4.2004. It is also stated that the petitioner has in letter dated 19.4.2004 addressed to the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed having received the said sale deed. As regards the letters referred to in the writ petition, it is stated that since the seizure was affected on 30.7.1974, attempts are being made to retrieve the said documents and that as soon as they are retrieved, they will be returned to the petitioner.

¶41

In my opinion, in the light of the fact that the original of the title deed has been returned to the petitioner after the writ petition was filed, the only surviving grievance is with regard to the return of the letters. The respondents have in the counter affidavit stated that steps are afoot to retrieve the letters and that as soon as they are retrieved, they will be returned to the petitioner. In the light of the said submission, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to return the letters seized from the petitioner on 30.7.1974 expeditiously, and in any event within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. If, for any reason, the

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 10900 of 2004

¶43

¶44

documents are not traceable and are not available for being returned for the reason that they have been misplaced or have been lost, the respondents may move for variation of this order.

¶45

P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge

¶46

vps

James Karipat v. Chief Enforcement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Karipat v. Chief Enforcement Officer

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

Paul C.Cherian Vs the District Collector

Umadevi Antherjanam Vs Union of India

T.K.Rajan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer & Others

N.K.Omana & 2 Others Vs State of Kerala,& Another

N.K. Rajan Vs the District Collector and Others

K.P.Balachandran Vs State of Kerala