Full Text
X W.P.(C)5604/2019 and CM APPL.24599/2019
SMT.REKHA KHyUTAN Petitioner Thi'ough: Mr P.V. Kapoor, Senior Advocate with Mr A.T. Patra, Mr P.K. Dubey, Mr Madhav Khurana, Ms Roopa
Dayal, Mr Sidhant Kapur, Ms Kaveri Gupta, Mr V.K., Nagrath and Mr
Aditya Ghadge,Advocates.
Through: Mr D.P. Singh, SPP with Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr Manu
Mishra, Ms Mallika Hiremath, Advocates with Mr Jitender Singh, Asst. Director'.
JUDGMENT
1 W.P.rCI 5650/2019 and CM APPL.24788/2019 NIPSHELL BUILDERSPVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr P.V. Kapoor, Senior Advocate ^ with Mr A.T. Patra, Mr P.K. Dubey, * Mr Madhav Khurana, Ms Roopa Dayal, Mr Sidhant Kapur, Ms Kaveri Gupta, Mr V.K. Nagrath and Mr Aditya Ghadge,Advocates.
VERSUS
SHRI YOGESHWAR SHARMA Respondent Through: Mr D.P. Singh, SPP with Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr Manu Mishra, Ms Mallika Hiremath, Advocates with Mr Jitender Singh, Asst. Director. 2019:DHC:7603 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 30.05.2019
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning a common order dated 09.03.2019 passed under Section 5 ofthe Prevention ofMoney Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, provisionally attaching certain properties ofthe petitioners. The petitioners also impugn a complaint(OC No. 1112 of 2019) made by the Deputy Director to the Adjudicating Authority.
2. It is seen thatthe impugned order is acommon order passed in respect offour persons. The said order also does not indicate any reason or material that could have possibly persuaded the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,to believe that the properties ofthe petitioners are'proceeds of crime' within the provisions ofthe Act.
3. Mr Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent readily f accepts that the impugned order ought to have been better worded and the ^ reasons for attaching the properties of the petitioners ought to have been disclosed in the order.
4. Since it is exfacie apparentthatthere is no material indicated either in the impugned provisional attachment order or in the impugned complaint which wouldjustify the same in respect ofthe petitioners or their assets,the aforesaid order and the complaint are liable to be set aside qua the petitioners. i t
5. In this view,the impugned order and the impugned complaint in so far as they relate to the petitioners, are set aside. The properties of the petitioners, as mentioned in the impugned order and the impugned complaint,are also excluded from the said order/complaint.
6. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the concerned officer from passing a fresh order,ifthere is a material in his possession to believe that the assets ofthe petitioners qualify as proceeds ofcrime within the meaning ofSection 2(1)(u)ofthe Act.
7. The pending applications are also disposed of.
8. Order dasti under signatures ofthe Court Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J MAY 30,2019 RK