City
Epaper

Decide on assets' release plea: Delhi HC to Kochhar's firm

By IANS | Published: August 19, 2020 8:32 PM

.The Delhi HC query came after the respondent, the Enforcement Directorate, pointed out that a similar petition had ...

Open in App

.

The Delhi HC query came after the respondent, the Enforcement Directorate, pointed out that a similar petition had already been moved in the Bombay High Court.

Justice Anup Jairam Bambani thereafter granted more time to the firm to decide on its stand and posted the matter for further hearing on August 25.

"As per the amended Section 8(3)(a) the PMLA, the seizure of a property can only continue for a period of 365 days from the confirmation of the seizure by the ED. However, even after the lapse of the said period, no complaint in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA has been filed by the ED in the present case," the plea said.

It said that earlier there was no time limit prescribed under the PMLA for the completion of investigation. However, the situation changed by virtue of an amendment dated April 19, 2018, wherein the specific period of 90 days was prescribed in the Act for the purpose of investigation. It was subsequently increased to 365 days.

"The mandate of the law now is that the retention shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days, as provided under Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA," the plea added.

The petitioner said that the firm is entitled to the benefit of time-period cap prescribed by Section 8(3)(a) and that the seizure must cease to exist by the operation of law and documents/cash/electronic devices seized by ED from the company premises are liable to be released.

"The travesty of justice is clear from the fact that after exercising powers under Section 17 of the Act to seize Rs 10.5 lakh, the ED invoked powers under Section 5 to state that there are 'reasons to believe' that the properties mentioned in schedule (which includes cash of Rs 10.5 lakh) is likely to be transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime, if not attached immediately," the petition read.

( With inputs from IANS )

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Tags: Anup jairam bambaniBombay High CourtEnforcement DirectorateJustice of bombay high courtBombay high
Open in App

Related Stories

PoliticsExcise Policy Case: Delhi HC Allows AAP's Manish Sisodia to Meet His Ailing Wife Once A Week

PoliticsHemant Soren Case: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Former CM's Petition Challenging ED Arrest

MaharashtraMaratha Reservation Row: OBC Welfare Foundation Moves HC Against Kunbi Certificates Given to Maratha Community

MaharashtraMumbai: HC Orders Railway Ministry to Deposit Rs 3.9 Crore Within a Month or Face Confiscation of Churchgate Building

MaharashtraBombay High Court Directs Maharashtra Government to Complete Aarey Colony Road Reconstruction within Two Years, Emphasizes Wildlife Safety

Business Realted Stories

BusinessFor sunflower oil refiners, volume to dip by 8-10 pc but operating margin likely to recover in FY25

BusinessWarren Buffett compares AI with nuclear weapons, shares personal experience

BusinessIndia Extends Duty-Free Import of Yellow Peas by Four Months

BusinessCipla, Glenmark recall drugs in US due to manufacturing issues

Business"India has unexplored and unattended to opportunities": Warren Buffet