Janata Gymkhana v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Dec 2009
- Bench
- N PATEL, A A SAYED
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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…
- Para 55. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N.PATEL, J) (A.A.SAYED, J)
Judgment
Mr.V.T.Tulpule i/by Ms.Nisha Parab & Mr.Harshad Khandalkar for the Petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.A.SAYED, JJ DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. :
Heard. Janata Gymkhana, the petitioner has filed this petition impugning the decision of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th 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.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will direct the 2 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.
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.
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.
Operative part
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Money Lenders Act, 1946.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Dec 2009. The bench was N PATEL, A A SAYED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.