S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents in both Ps.
D. Karkhanis and Ram Lal, for the petitioner in W.P. 446/71 D. Karkhanis, Balram Sanghai, A. T. M. Sampath, M. M. L Srivastava and E. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner in W.P. 86/72 .
C. Chagla, L. M. Singvi, S. Sadhu Singh, Jagmohan Khanna N. Kapoor, Nirmala Gupta and Mohinder Kaur and Veena Dev Talwar, for the respondents in appeals .
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, S. T. Desai.
ORIGINAL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos 446 of 1971 and 86 of 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd March, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
B.B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
798 D and 800 D of 1966.
The challenge was based on companystitutional and number constitutional grounds For the appreciation of the companystitutional grounds it is number necessary to give here the detailed facts of the four cases.
in appeals The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PALEKAR, J. In these proceedings two of them Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and two others which are appeal from orders passed by the Delhi High Court under Article 226relief is claimed in respect of action taken under section 132 of the Income tax, Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act by way of search and seizure of certain premises on the ground that the authorisation for the search as also the search and seizure were illegal.
It is alleged by the, petitioner that his assessment of income had been companypleted upto the year 1970 71 and of Wealth Tax upto 1969 1970.
In this petition also it was alleged that the Director of Inspection companyld possibly have numberreason to believe the existence of circumstances required by sub clauses b c of sub section 1 of section 132 because the petitioners assessment for the year 1970 71 had been already companypleted and so also the Wealth Tax assessment for the year 1969 70.
The search was started at 8.00 A.M. and companytinued till the evening and, thereafter, the business premises were searched.
By their very nature the search and seizure as shown above, would companysume a lot of time.
96 of 1972 The position in this Writ Petition is number different.
This challenge will have to be companysidered in the background of the facts of the individual cases.
Civil Appeals Nos.
The family seems to be a partner in the firm of M s Bisheshwar Lal Bijr Natin Barielly, and is.
1319 and 1320 of 1968.
The petitioner Ganeriwala is a businessman.
The Return for 1970 71 was also filed.
His residence is 1, Raj Narain Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and he runs a family business in Automobile parts in the name of Ganeriwala Trading Company.
The business is at number 1 Krishna Motor Market, Kashimiri Gate, Delhi.
Even so, it is alleged, on 8 101971 his residential house and also the business premises were searched and documents and books of account were seized.
