Delhi High Court - Orders
Emta Coal Limited & Ors vs The Deputy Director Directorate Of ... on 6 December, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~5, 6 & 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3821/2022 & CM APPLs. 11325/2022, 37473/2022
EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari,
Ms. Kartika Sharma and Ms. Vanshita
Gupta, Advs. (M: 9811666704)
versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Mr. Prakarsh
Airan, Mr. Harpreet Kalsi and Mr.
Abhishek Batra, Advocates for ED.
(Mob. No. 9810009734)
6 AND
+ W.P.(C) 12437/2022 & CM APPL. 37384/2022
EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari,
Ms. Kartika Sharma and Ms. Vanshita
Gupta, Advs. (M: 9811666704)
versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Mr. Prakarsh
Airan, Mr. Harpreet Kalsi and Mr.
Abhishek Batra, Advocates for ED.
(Mob. No. 9810009734)
51 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 14530/2022 & CM APPL. 44427/2022
SUJIT KUMAR UPADHAYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal,
Sr. Advocate with Mr. Krishna Datta,
Mr. P. Pandey, Mr. Abhinav S.,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:09.12.2022
20:35:37
Ms. Arshiya and Mr. Rishabh Yadav,
Advocates. (Mob. No. 9999997189)
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Mr. Prakarsh
Airan, Mr. Harpreet Kalsi and Mr.
Abhishek Batra, Advocates for ED.
(Mob. No. 9810009734)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 06.12.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of provisional attachment orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate. It is the case of the Petitioners that the CBI has filed closure report in the FIR on the basis of which ECIR was registered and the impugned provisional attachment orders were issued. The said closure report is also stated to have been accepted by the Special Court, CBI.
3. The submission on behalf of the Petitioners is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the provisional attachment orders deserve to be quashed. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the ld. Division Bench's judgment of this Court in Prakash Industries v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087, as also two orders passed by the Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:09.12.2022 20:35:374. Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel, on the other hand submits that it is only the criminal cases, which have arisen from the PMLA, that are liable to be quashed as per the dictum of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra) and not the attachment orders.
5. List for hearing on 10th January, 2023 on top of the board.
6. Interim orders to continue.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 6, 2022 Rahul/SK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:09.12.2022 20:35:37