12,00,000/ was the stock in trade of the firm, and it had number been secreted, there was numberjustification for the seizure of the money or the books and the other documents.
12,00,000/ was kept as the firms stock in trade or that the firm was left with numberother money whatsoever.
12,00,000/ was shown as balance in the books of account was incorrect.
Searches are also said to have been carried out in Mehmedabad office and the branch office at Surat, and some more books of account, papers and documents are said to have been seized there.
The petitioners applied for registration of the firm on April 7, 1971, and had time to file their return of income upto June 30, 1972.
The petitioners have stated that as the sum of Rs.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
12,00,000/ as cash on January 10, 1972, which is said to have been duly entered in its books of account in the Bombay branch office.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution.
Bhupendra Ratilal Thakkar, petitioner No.
12,00,000/ along with the books of account and other documents.
96 of 1972.
They have also denied the allegation that any search was carried on in the Mehmedabad head office of the petitioner firm or that the sum of Rs.
B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar for respondents.
N. Shroff for the appellant petitioner.
Its principal place of business is said to be at Mehmadabad, with branches at Surat and Bombay.
1, is the managing partner of the other petitioner M s Rajnikant Nareshchandra Shroff, which is a partnership firm carrying on the business of shroffs and bankers.
