Bombay High Court
PARESH DINSUKHRAY RAITHATHA PROPRIETOR OF R D INTERNATIONALversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court directed Respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's request for provisional release within two weeks and disposed the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Paresh Dinsukhray Raithatha, proprietor of R.D. International, filed a writ petition seeking two reliefs: warehousing of goods seized by authorities and provisional release of those goods. The court noted that a No Objection Certificate for warehousing had been issued by Respondent No.3, rendering that relief straightforward. The petitioner also submitted multiple letters requesting provisional release, which Respondent No.2 contested on the ground of clandestine importation of the goods. The court declined to grant immediate provisional release but directed Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's request on its merits and decide within two weeks. The petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the seized goods.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to warehousing of the seized goods in view of the NOC issued.
Subjects
- provisional release
- seizure of goods
- warehousing
- writ petition
- Union of India
- NOC
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
10-wp 12683-26.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KADAM CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2026
KADAM
Date: 2026.10.01
18:28:01 +0530
Paresh Dinsukhray Raithatha … Petitioner
Proprietor of R. D. International
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Vishal Agarwal a/w. Mr. Rishabh Jain i/b TLC Legal LLP for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav i/b Mr. Shyam Pathak for Respondent No.3.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner essentially seeks two reliefs; one is
warehousing of the goods which has been seized. So far as the
aspect of warehousing is concerned, Ms. Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 submits that the necessary NOC has been issued
vide letter dated 11th August, 2026 and 28 th August, 2026. Pursuant
to such NOC being granted, consequential action would obviously be
taken.
Amk 1/2
10-wp 12683-26.doc
3. The other aspect of the petition is that the petitioner is
seeking provisional release of the seized goods. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that several letters have been addressed to
the respondents to provisionally release the goods. A letter dated
19th June, 2026 is at Exhibit M and other letters are at Exhibits N, O,
P & Q are on record.
4. Mr. Ochani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that the petitioner is not entitled for seeking provisional release
considering the clandestine manner in which the goods have been
imported. He seeks some time to file Affidavit-in-Reply.
5. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought in this
petition, at this stage we are only inclined to issue a direction to
respondent No.2 to consider and decide the request made by the
petitioner for provisional release of the seized goods through above
mentioned letters on its own merits and in accordance with law
expeditiously in any case within a period of two weeks from the date
of communication of this Order.
6. The petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.