It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent number1 that the first respondents Bank Account was freezed by the appellants herein on 30.7.2005.
The High Court passed the judgment in favour of respondent No.1 on 14.10.2005.
In view of the subsequent developments, we are number going into the questions of law raised and the merits in this appeal at this stage.
A sum of Rs.49,86,755.25 was seized by the appellants herein, which was in credit in the Bank Account of the first respondent with the second respondent.
This Court on 11.11.2005 granted interim stay till the matter is listed on due date.
The appellant filed the special leave petition before this Court only on 28.10.2005.
Consequently, the High Court has directed the second respondent Bank to release the account of respondent number1 and permit operation thereof.
In this appeal, several grounds have been raised by the Union of India questioning the legality and companyrectness of the orders passed by the High Court.
The appeal was filed by the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance and the Director of Revenue Intelligence and two others questioning the companyrectness of the judgment passed by the High Court dated 14.10.2005.
It appears that the first respondent, between 15.10.2005 and 29.10.2005, has withdrawn a sum of Rs.49,09,712/ leaving a balance of Rs.75,043.25.
Heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant Union of India and Mr. Arun Jaitely, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1.
arising out of SLP C No.23168/2005 Dr. AR .
The High Court while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent number1 held that the action of the appellants herein in preventing respondent number1 from operating its account was bad in law and the appellants companyld number have issued any direction under section 110 3 read with section 113 i and section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
