Delhi High Court - Orders
Ritu Khaitan vs Yogeshwar Sharma, Deputy Director, ... on 15 June, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 3529/2020
RITU KHAITAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.K. Dubey, Mr. A.T. Patra, Mr.
Aditya Ghadge and Mr. Anurag
Andley, Advocates
versus
YOGESHWAR SHARMA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 15.06.2020 CM No.12541/2020 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM Nos.12542/2020 and 12543/2020 (Exemption from Filing Court Fee, etc.) In view of the prevailing situation, Applications are disposed of with a direction to the Applicant to pay the requisite court fee and place on record the notarized affidavit, within a period of one week of lifting of the lockdown.
Applications stand disposed of.
WP(C) 3529/2020 & CM No.12540/2020 (Stay) Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. By this Petition, the Petitioner herein challenges the legality and validity of a Provisional Attachment Order dated 12.03.2020, passed by the Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provisionally attaching the balance available on that date in the Petitioner's Bank Account No.001690700008472 in Yes Bank, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi, being Rs.9,98,896.05, allegedly being equivalent value of the part of the value of the alleged 'Proceeds of Crime'.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, amongst other grounds, contends that the impugned order is illegal in as much as, the Account attached was closed in 2013 and the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 which came into force only in 2015 has been applied retrospectively. Mr. Dubey has drawn the attention of the Court to Page 38 of the Petition to substantiate that the Account was closed in May 2013. Counsel submits that the Order suffers from a jurisdictional error and Petitioner has therefore invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court instead of resorting to the alternate remedies available to it in the other Forums.
Mr. Dubey relies on an Order dated 08.11.2019 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, being : WP(C) No.11770/2019, WP(C) No. 11812/2019 and WP(C) No. 11827/2019, wherein similar attachment orders are impugned by Mr. Gautam Khaitan, husband of the Petitioner herein. He points out that the Court has stayed the adjudication proceedings, although the attachment of the property in question, has not been stayed.
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, appearing on an advance copy, on behalf of Respondent, submits that the Petitioner is well aware of the alternate remedies available to her and therefore with respect to attachment of another Account in June 2019, she has rightly taken recourse under the adjudicatory mechanism and the matter is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Amit Mahajan thus takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Petition.
On the issue of interim order, Mr. Amit Mahajan, while opposing the relief, submits that while the Petitioner has chosen to file the Order passed on 08.11.2019, she has not annexed the Order dated 30.05.2019, passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the connected cases of Sh. O.P. Khaitan and Sh. Gautam Khaitan, being: WP(C) No. 5624/2019 and WP(C) No. 5654/2019, where the Court has declined to stay the adjudication proceedings and has only restrained the Authorities from passing a Final Order.
Issue notice on the Petition and the application. Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned CGSC, accepts Notice on behalf of the Respondent and seeks a period of four weeks to file reply to the petition and the stay application. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List the Petition and the Application on 30.07.2020 when the connected batch of petitions, being : WP(C) No. 11770/2019, WP(C) No. 11812/2019 and WP(C) No. 11827/2019 is coming up for hearing.
In the meantime, it is directed that, in case any proceedings are initiated by the Respondent, they may go on, but no Final Order will be passed, without leave of the Court, till the next date of hearing.
At this stage, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the Petitioner, requests that vide the Impugned Order, a sum of Rs.9,98,896.05 has been attached and, therefore, the Petitioner be permitted to operate the said Bank Account, for the balance amount, if any, subject to the undertaking that the Petitioner will always maintain a balance of the attached amount.
Mr. Mahajan, learned CGSC, fairly submits that he has no objection to this prayer of the Petitioner. However, the said no-objection is without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent to take any further action, as may be required in law, with respect to the Bank Account in question.
Petitioner is hereby granted liberty to operate Account No. 001690700008472 maintained in Yes Bank, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi, subject to maintaining a balance of Rs.9,98,896.05, at all times.
This Order will be without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent to take further action, if necessary, in accordance with law.
JYOTI SINGH, J JUNE 15, 2020 yg/