Bharat Water Works through its Proprietor Mr Rajendra Sanghvi vs Union of India

ORAL JUDGMENT-WP(L)-22859-2025(1).DOCX Chaitanya IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 4. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 20 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per- M.S. Sonak, J.) :- 1. Heard Ms Chandni Tanna for the Petitioner and Mr Siddharth Chandrashekhar, for the Respondent Nos . 1 to 4. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the attachment orders involving his bank account and his factory building, which, the Petitioner claims, he came to know only in May 2025, when the bank account was actually frozen. Ms Tanna, on ORAL JUDGMENT-WP(L)-22859-2025(1).DOCX instructions, states that the bank account was frozen on 19 May 2025. 4. Ms Tanna referred to the provisions in Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( “said Act”) to submit that the attachment could have been effected only if the amount allegedly due from the Petitioner could not have been recovered in the manner provided in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 142(1). She submitted that in this case, the detained goods, i.e. photocopy mach