Mohammed Dileep V. Income Tax Department and V.S. Ramakrishnan and Sangeeth Krishna and Dileep

WP(C)/30982/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the seizure of title documents belonging to the petitioner, Mohammed Dileep, by the Income Tax Department during a raid. The documents were initially with the 3rd respondent, V.S. Ramakrishnan. The petitioner approached the court after the Income Tax Department declined to return the documents, citing uncertainty about the rightful owner due to the documents being found with the 3rd respondent. The court found that the 3rd respondent did not contest the matter and thus ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the return of the documents under certain conditions to protect against future claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796897 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAVANEETH NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: S KUMAR; DEEPAK THOMAS; BINU VARGHESE
• Keywords: Income Tax Department; Seizure; Title Documents; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30982 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: MOHAMMED DILEEP AGED 52 YEARS THADATHIL PUTHUPARAMBIL, NALUNNAKKAL P.O., VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686538 BY ADVS. S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD) DEEPAK THOMAS BINU VARGHESE RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 2 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 3 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN RAMA RADHA NILAYAM, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI., PIN - 682028 4 SANGEETH KRISHNA S/O. DILEEP, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULIMUTTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN - 680691 5 DILEEP VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULIMUTTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN - 682691 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30982 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that title documents of his property - which was entrusted to the 3rd respondent - was seized from him by respondents 1 and 2, during raid on his house and office premises. He says that, however, since he is the owner of the property, the documents are liable to be returned to him; and therefore, that he approached the said respondents, who have, however, declined to accede to it. He says that he has, therefore, been constrained to approach this Court, through this writ petition. 2. Sri.Navaneeth N.Nath – learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that though the title documents can be released by his clients, the question is, to whom it should be done. He explained that his clients are in a WP(C) NO. 30982 OF 2023 3 dilemma because, though the title documents are in the name of the petitioner, it was taken possession of from the house of the 3rd respondent. 3. I see from the records that even though summons from this Court has been validly served on the 3rd respondent, he has chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that he has nothing to offer in opposition to the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. 4 . I, therefore, put it to Sri. Navaneeth N.Nath if, when the 3rd respondent, is refusing to even appear before this Court, his client would have any objection in the title documents been handed over to the petitioner. He answered that they impel no objection; but that they may WP(C) NO. 30982 OF 2023 4 be sufficiently protected, if any claim is to be made by the 3rd respondent in future. Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this writ petition and direct respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the title documents in question to the petitioner, on proper receipt and on obtaining a Bond from him that he will hold them indemnified against any claim to be made against the property or the documents by the 3rd respondent in future. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 30982 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30982/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.505/2014 DATED 18.03.2014 OF UDUMBANCHOLA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1774/2013 DATED 20.08.2013 OF UDUMBANCHOLA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.434/2015 DATED 17.03.2015 OF UDUMBANCHOLA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.435/2015 DATED 17.03.2015 OF UDUMBANCHOLA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.436/2015 DATED 17.03.2015 OF UDUMBANCHOLA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.08.2020 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN EXHIBITS P1 TO P5. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.07.2018 BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.07.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER "