Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Directorate Of Enforcement vs Ram Swaroop Rungta on 29 January, 2020

Author: B.B. Mangalmurti

Bench: B.B. Mangalmurti

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               A.C. (S.B.) No.11 of 2019
                                  ------

Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director (PMLA) Shri Awadh Bihari Lal .... .... .... Appellant Versus Ram Swaroop Rungta, Director M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd.

.... .... .... Respondent With A.C. (S.B.) No.8 of 2019

------

Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director (PMLA) Shri Awadh Bihari Lal .... .... .... Appellant Versus Shri Ram Chandra Rungta, Director M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd.

.... .... .... Respondent With A.C. (S.B.) No.9 of 2019

------

Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director (PMLA) Shri Awadh Bihari Lal .... .... .... Appellant Versus R.K. Chouraria, Director M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd.

.... .... .... Respondent With A.C. (S.B.) No.10 of 2019

------

Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director (PMLA) Shri Awadh Bihari Lal .... .... .... Appellant Versus M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd. .... .... .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

------

04/29.01.2020 A.C. (S.B.) No.10 of 2019 Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Directorate of Enforcement, who submitted that the office has pointed out two defects. Defect No.2 "Name of appellant may be given as per impugned order. Defect No.8 "Address details of sole appellant is missing in impugned order. It may be sent to court below for necessary correction after obtaining orders".

Learned counsel may verify the address of sole appellant of memo after removal of defect no.8.

Learned counsel submitted that it was Directorate of Enforcement who was respondent before the appellate tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act at New Delhi and has now approached this Court as appellant through its Assistant Director although the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement was respondent before the tribunal. He further submitted that the defect may be ignored.

Under the situation, defect nos.2 and 8 are ignored for the time being.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that defect nos.2 and 9, pointed out by the office, may be ignored. It is submitted that appellant-Directorate of Enforcement through Assistant Director has preferred this appeal before this Court whereas Directorate of Enforcement through Joint Director was respondent before the tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act at New Delhi, therefore, requested for ignoring defect nos.2 and 9.

In view of above prayer, defect nos.2 and 9, pointed out by the office, are ignored for the time being.

So far defect no.13 is concerned, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate submitted that he will ensure the appearance of counsel on behalf of respondent in this case.

Defect nos.11 and 13, pointed out by the office, are ignored for the time being. So far defect no.1 is concerned, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate submitted that he will ensure the appearance of counsel on behalf of respondent in this case.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far defect no.11 is concerned, certified copy of order has been sent to the Court below for necessary correction which has not been received as yet. I.A. No.10855 of 2019 in A.C. (S.B.) No.11 of 2019), I.A. No.10850 of 2019 in A.C. (S.B.) No.8 of 2019, I.A. No.10851 of 2019 in A.C. (S.B.) No.9 of 2019 and I.A. No.10852 of 2019 in A.C. (S.B.) No.10 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Directorate of Enforcement as well as counsel for respondent-M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has preferred these applications for grant of stay on execution of order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the appellate tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act at New Delhi which was filed by respondent- M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that after finding prima facie case against the respondent, the order of attachment was confirmed by the adjudicating authority as well as for the purpose of prosecution, Directorate of Enforcement has filed prosecution complaint on 17.07.2018 under Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 before the Special Court, PMLA and prayed for stay of operation of the order passed by the appellate tribunal dated 06.09.2019.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he will file response to I.A. No.10852 of 2019 filed in A.C. (S.B.) No.10 of 2019 within a week.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that some interim order may be passed as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant.

Learned counsel, Mr. Rai further submitted that he has got instruction from M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd that existing attached property which were attached by the adjudicating authority shall not be disposed of till the next date.

Considering the submission of the parties, interim order is passed for maintaining the status quo as of today relating to the properties attached by the adjudicating officer till the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, as per undertaking, the appearance of counsel on behalf of respondent shall be made for effective hearing on the interlocutory applications being I.A. No.10855 of 2019, I.A. No.10850 of 2019, I.A. No.10851 of 2019 and I.A. No.10852 of 2019 as well as filing response to the interlocutory applications before the date fixed.

On consent of both sides counsel, list these cases on 5th March, 2020.

Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent A.C. (S.B.) No.10 of 2019.

(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Anit/Pankaj