Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs J. Sekar on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
1
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.16 SECTION XIV
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 (C) No(s). 12865/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2018
in WPC No. 5320/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
J. SEKAR Respondent(s)
IA No. 72009/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
WITH
Diary No(s). 5616/2019 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 31198/2019
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
31199/2019
IA No. 31198/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 31199/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 21-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG (NP)
Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Ashima Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2023.02.24
16:40:36 IST
Reason: Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR
Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Adv.
Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Adv.
Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv.
2
Ms. Prabhneer Swani, Adv.
Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners submits that the present matters pertains to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 5(1) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (for short “PMLA Act”). He further submits that the High Court erred in importing the requirement of communication of the expression “reason to believe” applicable for the income tax act proceeding) for the purpose of PMLA Act proceeding. Mr. Jain refers to the ratio of the three-Judge Bench decision in Vinay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 to submit that the present matters are covered by the aforesaid judgment. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner in the connected item and she prays for accommodation.
Post the matter after one month.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)