Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 2nd September, 2025
SMT GURDEEP KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramakant Gur, Ms. Sneha Arya, Ms. Harshi Gaur, Ms. Meenakshi Sahu, Ms. Roopini Nandam, Ms. Pankhuri Tiwari, Sobia Manzoor
Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi & Ms. Ananya Sanjiv Saraogi, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC
Singh, Advs. for R-2.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Smt. Gurdeep Kaur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned action by Respondent No. 1– Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter, ‘SDM’) whereby the Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 crores as arrears of land revenue.
3. The background of the present case is that the Petitioner was married to one Mr. Harnek Singh, who is running a company by the name of M/s. Param Equipments Private Limited (hereinafter, ‘the company’) wherein the Petitioner was a Director up until she resigned from the said position on 7th March, 2017.
4. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that she had matrimonial disputes with her husband– Mr. Harnek Singh and they formally got divorced on 4th March, 2021.
5. Subsequently, certain investigation proceedings were carried out against the company with respect to allegations of smuggling and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’) had seized 44 kgs of gold bars, which were alleged to be goods smuggled by the company. Such seizure was made by the DRI on 13th May, 2017. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 11th November, 2017 with respect to such seizure.
6. On 31st March, 2021, the Order-in-Original bearing No. DLI/CUS/PREV/GSS/ADC/236/2021 was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and a liability was fixed at Rs. 18 crores.
7. On 18th April, 2022, the husband of the Petitioner passed away and thereafter, the Petitioner received a recovery notice dated 1st March, 2025 issued by Respondent No. 1– SDM. Following such recovery notice, a representation was sent by the Petitioner to SDM on 13th March, 2025 and again on 1st April, 2025. However, the SDM issued a recovery notice dated 9th April, 2025 and has also threatened the Petitioner with a possible arrest in case of non-compliance.
8. Notice was issued in this matter on 21st April, 2025 and affidavits were to be filed. In addition, the Court had directed the stay of the proceedings before the SDM in the following terms:
9. Today, ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has handed over a short counter affidavit which he has already filed but is not on record. Let the same be brought on record.
10. A perusal of the same would show that according to the SDM, the recovery notice to the Petitioner was issued pursuant to the recovery certificate issued before the Assistant Commissioner (Recovery), Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) New Customs House.
11. It is now submitted that the said recovery notice dated 1st March, 2025 has been withdrawn qua Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur i.e., the Petitioner before this Court.
12. In view thereof, the contention of ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 is that the notice dated 1st March, 2025 against the Petitioner shall also stand withdrawn.
13. The letter issued on 29th August, 2025 is captured below: “This is with reference to WP (C) No. 4992/2025 filed in the case of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur v. Sub Divisional Magistrate & Anr. before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
2. In this regard, the Department issued certificate action on 01.02.2023 for recovery of dues from the company which was sent to the SDM for further action. In the said letter, Sh. Harnek Singh and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur were referred to as directors of the company. However, pursuant to Petitioner's letter dated 14.02.2023, the subsequent certificate action dated 20.11.2024 that was sent to the SDM did not contain names of any of the directors.
3. In this regard, kindly note that legal opinion was sought from the lawyer in the present matter wherein it has been submitted that imposing liability on the Petitioner for the dues of the Company may be be misplaced in law in view of the following facts:i) The Petitioner resigned from the position of director of the company prior to the seizure made by DRI. ii) Also, after getting divorce from Mr. Harnek Singh, the Petitioner ceased to be his legal representative. iii) Furthermore, the Petitioner was never made a party to any of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the said seizure.
4. Accordingly, the certificate action dated 01.02.2023 against Smt. Gurdeep Kaur for recovery of dues is being withdrawn. This is for your information & action please.”
14. In view of the fact that no recovery proceedings are being pressed against the Petitioner, the petition stands satisfied.
15. No further orders are required to be passed in this matter.
16. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE ANISH DAYAL JUDGE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 Rahul/Ck