9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C)No.3265/2008 Mr. Tarun Dalmiya Petitioner Through : Mr. Prem Ranjan, Advocate for petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. Respondents Through : Present: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv. for the petitioner -_ coRAM: I {s HoN'BLE MR. JusrrcE G.s. srsrANl 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER 22.LO.2008 + WP(C)No. 3265/2OO8 * i\: 1. A raid was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 10,L.2007. tt As per the petitioner, he had joined one of his relatives and started assisting him in the office work. Subsequently, the petitioner was made a Director in the company, M/s Saara Sales Pvt. Ltd, a manufacturing unit of Sh. Sangit Aggarwal, situated at Haridwar. lt is a case of the petitioner that he resigned as a Director on 15.10.2004 and thereafter started working only as a Commission Agent. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2. During the raid, the officers of respondent no. 2 found a sum of Rs.5 lacs at the residence of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner are his personal savings and savings of his family members. He was forced by the officers of DRI to write a letter that he has voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.5 lacs towards his liability, towards the duty payable. Subsequently, petitioner disputed his liability for payment of any duty on the ground that he is neither a Director of the company nor liable in any way for deposit.of any duty. lt is strongly urged before the court that in case the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs was voluntarily deposited as duty, the petitioner would surely have mentioned this fact in the statement made by the petitioner before the respondent on the same day at the time of the raid. The counsel further contends that the company against which the raid was conducted had filed a petition being w.P (c) No. 567712007 before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Court had directed the respondents tozrelease a sum of Rs.23.90 lacs, which was seized during the raid conducted on the same date at the residence of the Director of the company. The Court also set aside the restriction which was imposed by the respondent with respect to a sum of Rs.4.B9 lacs lying in the bank of the company. The counsel submits that the petitioner'is also willing to comply with the conditions imposed on the petitioners in the WP(C)No.567712007 wherein the Division Bench had I { *\rt, I directed that the amount of Rs.23.90 lacs be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to however, the petitioner giving an undertaking to the court that in case, the adjudication proceedings are decided against the petitioner, he would deposit the amount in Court within a week thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner is even on a better footing than that of thg company, in view of the fact that he is not even a Director of the company and thus not connected or concerned with payment of duty. : Counsel for the petitioner also submits that till date, no show-cause has been issued to the petitioner or even to the company.With respect to the raid which was conducted by the respondentfand further in case, a sum'of Rs.5 lacs was deposited towards the duty, the same would have been deposited by filling a challan in Form No. TR6. The present petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.5 lacs towards the duty and at this stage, it is not open for the petitioner to a.sk for a refund, which can only be made after the adjudication proceedings are completed. However, it is not in dispute that the w.P (c) No. 5677/2007 filed by the company was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by making an order that the amount seized be released, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking within one week stating therein that in case adjudication { 3. 4. [\'I I C t proceedings are decided against the petitioner he Will deposit the amount in this court within one week thereafter. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release a sum of Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner upon petitioner furnishing an undertaking to this Court, stating therein that in case, the adjudication proceedings are decided against the petitioner, he would deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.5 lacs within a week, thereafter. lt is also made clear that in the event the undertaking is violated, the petitioner shall be liable for proceedings under the contempt of courts Act. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. G-5. G.S. SISTANI, J. 5. October 22, KA t^'4r