IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION No 11045 of 1996
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 1965 of 1996
with
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1965 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. o
he Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not?
No. o the Reporter or not? No. o the Rep
rter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter o
not? No. o the Reporter or not? No. o t
e Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not?
No. o the Reporter or not? No. o the Repo
ter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Reporter or not? No. o the Reporter or not? No.
o the Report
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
No.
————————————————————–
VIKRAMSINGHJI MULRAJSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
1. Civil Application No. 11045 of 1996
MR HJ NANAVATI for Petitioner
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
2. Special Civil ApplicationNo 1965 of 1996
MR HJ NANAVATI for Petitioner
SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
Date of decision: 10/02/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This application is filed by original petitioner
in SCA No. 1965/96. SCA No. 1965/96 is preferred by
the in SCA No. 1965/96. SCA No. 1965/96 is preferred
against the order of the Collector dated 23.1.96 by which
the Collector ordered confiscation of petroleum products
seized from the present petitioner which was worth Rs.
43,690.75. The petitioner was permitted to take the said
petroleum product in his possession and custody by
furnishing an amount of Rs. 43,695.75. In the main
petition i.e. SCA No. 1965/96 the petitioner had sought
ad-interim relief restraining the respondents from
encashing the bank guarantee. This court by an order
dated 14.10.96 granted the interim relief on condition
that on the petitioner depositing 50 percent of the
amount of the value of the seized goods, there will be
interim stay as prayed for.
2.Now by this CA No. 11045/96, the petitioner
wants this court to direct the respondent to return the
said bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for an
amount of Rs. 43,690.75, but when the petitioner was
granted interim relief, he was granted interim relief on
condition of not encashing the bank guarantee till the
final disposal of the petition and on his depositing half
of the amount of the bank guarantee with the respondents.
It was not claimed by the petitioner in the original
petition while seeking ad interim relief an ad-interim
relief that the bank guarantee should be returned to him.
Merely because he happens to deposit half of the amount
of the bank guarantee it could not be said that the bank
guarantee furnished by the petitioner must be returned to
the petitioner. The interim relief was only against the
respondent from encashing the said bank guarantee and on
condition of depositing that amount till the final
disposal of the petition. Therefore, in the
circumstances there is no question of returning the bank
guarantee to the petitioner .In view of the fact that the
the petitioner has deposited the amount as ordered by
this court, the respondents are not to encash or
liquidate the said bank guarantee till the disposal of
the petition. The petitioner has to also to keep the
said bank guarantee alive till final disposal of the main
petition i.e. SCA No. 1965/96. In case unfortunately
if the petitioner happened to fail in the main petition,
then an order could be passed by way of direction to
respondent to recover from the bank guarantee only the
amount exceeding the amount deposited by him. With these
observations I hold that the CA No.11045/96 will have to
be dismissed and I accordingly dismiss the same.
The petitioner to file the translation of the
annexures annexed to the petition within 3 weeks.
Respondent to file reply to the petition within 3 weeks.
Rejoinder if any be filed within one week thereafter.
The main petition to come up for hearing on 12.3.1997.
(S.D.Pandit.J)