AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.—The writ petitioner''s bank accounts at Calcutta have been restrained from operation, excepting for receipt of inward remittances.
HDFC Bank gave no reason for such stoppage, but the Bank of America forwarded the copy letter which worked as an attachment order.
The letter is written by a Deputy Director who should be a junior bureaucrat as per his designation.
The Bank accounts have been sought to be restrained as to their operation and Section 110 of the Customs Act has been mentioned.
Summons has been served u/s 108.
The allegations in the copy letter forwarded by the Bank of America are absolutely vague.
Phrases like "huge amounts" are used. This is not newspaper language, not legal. Nobody can spell out why the monies in the accounts might ultimately be liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Nobody can make out why summons u/s 108 has been served when the allegation is the obtaining of "Fraudulent" drawback by quite another party than the writ petitioner and not smuggling.
Stopping banking operations on such vague grounds is irresponsible use of authority by the respondents.
The observations herein, however worded, are prima facie and without prejudice. Affidavits have to be invited after all respondents appear after service of rule.
Rule as prayed for. Returnable 8 weeks after re-opening after Christmas vacation. During pendency of the Rule, there shall be interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition.
Prayer for adjournment made by the first three appearing respondents for obtaining instructions from Delhi is turned down.
Parties and all others concerned to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.