Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs Joint Director, Directorate Of ... on 11 May, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3599/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/04/2015
in WP No. 262/2015,01/04/2015 in WAMP No. 768/2015 passed by the
High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana
And The State Of Andhra Pradesh)
TECH MAHINDRA LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS.Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to bring additional documents as
volume 5 to 6 and permission to file addl. Documents as volume 12
to 17 and permission to file lengthy list of dates and permission
to bring on record addl. Documents which do not form art of High
court record as volume 7 to 11 and office reprot)
Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.V.Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Adv.
MR. Vivek Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev K.Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Kumar, Adv.
MR. Sahil Narang, Adv.
Mr. Snehal Kakarnia, Adv.
Mr. Karan Khanna, Adv.
M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG,
Signature Not Verified
Mr. R.Balasubramanian, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Shashi Sareen
Date: 2015.05.19
Mr. Tajveer Bhatia, Adv.
09:50:26 IST
Reason: Mr. T.A.Khan, Adv.
Mr. B.K.Prasad, Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This special leave petition assails an interim order dated 01.04.2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.M.P. No. 768 of 2015 in W.P. No. 262 of 2015 whereby the High Court has permitted the Trial Court to hear learned counsel for the parties including the petitioner-company in regard to framing of charges against them with a further direction that in case the charges are framed against the petitioner-company, no further steps shall be taken against it pending further orders.
It is common ground that the appeal arising out of an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court whereby the petitioner-company was discharged for prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is still pending consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court. It is also not in dispute that the question of framing of charges against the petitioner-company would arise only if the order passed by the Single Judge is set aside or atleast stayed. Neither of these two contingencies has occurred so far as the High Court has neither stayed the order passed by the learned Single Judge nor set aside the same.
In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the High Court could be requested to hear the appeal filed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India on its merits and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as 3 possible preferably within a period four months from today. In the meantime, proceedings before the Trial Court qua the petitioner-company herein as also other accused persons for framing of charges could remain stayed. We accordingly dispose of this special leave petition with the above modification and request the High Court to take up the appeal, hear and dispose of the same as early as possible. We however make it clear that we have expressed no any opinion on the merits of the contentions that may be urged by learned counsel for the parties at the hearing before the High Court.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master