Dismissed

Nilesh Kumar Jain And Another v. The Union of India And 2 Others

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022WP/20514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interlocutory petition filed by the Income Tax Department became infructuous. The principal matter involved the return of seized gold jewellery was disposed of earlier by the same court, ordering release upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed as infructuous since the underlying writ petition was already disposed of.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

03.

10.01.2023

HCJ & SNJ

I.A.No.2 of 2022
(On being mentioned)

Heard
Mr.
J.V.Prasad,
learned
Standing
Counsel,
Income
Tax

Transferred to i/o
folder, before
corrections, if any.

Department for the applicants and
Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 & 2/writ petitioners.
This interlocutory application has
been filed to bring to the notice of the
Court certain developments pertaining
to the subject matter of the writ petition.
We may mention that Writ Petition
No.20514 of 2022 was disposed of by

this
Court
vide
the
order
dated

25.07.2022 in the following manner:

“10.
There is no dispute that tax
arrears of the petitioners have been

settled
with
the
Income
Tax
Department under provisions of the
Direct Tax Vivadh Se Vishwas Act,

2020. Certificate has also been

issued in this regard. Since the

direct tax dispute has been settled, it
is necessary that the jewellery which

SL.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE

NOTE

was seized from the premises of the
petitioners on 10.02.2000 which was
the basis of the tax dispute should
be returned back to the petitioners.
It is also not disputed that the

jewellery
was
seized
from
the

premises of the petitioners’ late
father on 10.02.2020 as per list of

inventory
dated
10.02.2020.
Therefore, to insist that petitioners
should produce succession certificate
now as a condition for return of the
jewellery is not justified. Holding of

the
seized
jewellery
by
the
respondents after the tax dispute has

been
settled
would
amount
to

unlawful
holding
of
property

belonging to the petitioners. There is
nothing on record to show that the
other legal heir of the deceased has
come forward to claim a share of the
seized jewellery though the jewellery

remained in the custody of the

Income Tax Department for the last

more than 22 years. At the most if

any dispute arises it would be

amongst the legal heirs of late Rikab
Raj Jain, but that should not be the
reason for holding on to the seized
jewellery by the respondents.

11.
Consequently
and
in
the

light
of
the
above,
we
direct

respondent No.3 to forthwith hand

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

over the seized jewellery as per list of
inventory dated 10.02.2000 to the
petitioners who shall furnish a bond
to the 3^rdrespondent that they have
received the seized jewellery as legal
heirs of late Rikab Raj Jain. Let
respondent No.3 release the seized
jewellery within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.”
In paragraph 4 of the interlocutory

application,
it
is
stated
that
one
Ms. Neeta Kothari claiming to be the
sister of the writ petitioners had sent an

e-mail
dated
04.06.2022
to
the

applicants
stating
that
she
had

withdrawn her consent given earlier
with the further request not to release
the seized gold jewellery and ornaments
to her brothers.

On
a
query
by
the
Court,

Mr.
J.V.Prasad,
learned
Standing

Counsel fairly submits that pursuant to

the order of this Court, the gold

jewellery and ornaments were released
to the writ petitioners.
In that view of the matter, we see

no
good
ground
to
entertain
the

interlocutory application, which has
become infructuous.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

I.A. is accordingly
infructuous.

dismissed as

_____________
HCJ

_____________
SNJ

Nilesh Kumar Jain And Another v. The Union of India And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Kumar Jain And Another v. The Union of India And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bankatlal Bhati, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal

M/s B.S. Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

K.S.S. Yasaswi and Anothers Vs Prl. Secy., Health and 2 Others

Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd and 2 Ot Vs M/S Global Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Sec-Bad and 3 Ot

J Ram Mohan Chowdhary S/o Jj Chowdary Vs Union of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Vs M/s.Global Shelters Pvt.ltd