Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 37 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing J. Sekar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2018

J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction ... vs Directorate Of Enforcement, (Through ... on 15 May, 2023

4. This Court considered the legal position laid down in J Sekar v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) which was passed by ld. Division Bench of this Court and has also been followed subsequently in WP(C) 12243/2022 titled Alaknanda Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. Directorate of Enforcement as also Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Ltd v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023/DHC/001436 and Sanjay Jain (IN JC) v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2023/DHC/000078. Admittedly, the order which is under challenge is a final attachment order which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

M/S Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 20 February, 2023

18. Before parting, this Court would like to add that the AA plays a significant role under the PMLA. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that there are a large volume of cases pending under the PMLA. The Act contemplates the existence of a Chairperson and other members as per Section 6(2) of PMLA. It also contemplates the constitution of separate Benches. Though, as held in J. Sekar (supra) one member can constitute an Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of the Act, there is clearly a dire need for constitution of multiple Benches of the AA to function simultaneously.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Arun Ramchandran Pillai vs Directorate Od Enforcement on 11 September, 2024

60. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on the decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, (supra), Pavana Dibbur vs. Enforcement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3322/2023 Page 16 of 21 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.09.2024 18:23:52 Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, ED vs. Aditya Tripathi, decided vide Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023 by the Apex Court on 12.05.2023, P. Rajendran vs. Directorate of Enforcement, decided vide Criminal Original Petition No. 19880/2023 by the Madras High Court on 14.09.2022, J. Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6253, Radha Mohan Lakhotia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116 and Dr. Manik Bhattacharaya vs. Ramesh Malik & Ors., decided vide SLP (C) 16325/2022.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Amit Arora vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 17 September, 2024

38. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on the decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, (supra), Pavana Dibbur vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, ED vs. Aditya Tripathi, decided vide Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023 by the Apex Court on 12.05.2023, P. Rajendran vs. Directorate of Enforcement, decided vide Criminal Original Petition No. 19880/2023 by the Madras High Court on 14.09.2022, J. Sekar vs. Union of India &Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6253, Radha Mohan Lakhotia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116 and Dr. Manik Bhattacharaya vs. Ramesh Malik &Ors., decided vide SLP (C) 16325/2022.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 17 September, 2024

60. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on the decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, (supra), Pavana Dibbur vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, ED vs. Aditya Tripathi, decided vide Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023 by the Apex Court on 12.05.2023, P. Rajendran vs. Directorate of Enforcement, decided vide Criminal Original Petition No. 19880/2023 by the Madras High Court on 14.09.2022, J. Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6253, Radha Mohan Lakhotia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116 and Dr.Manik Bhattacharaya vs. Ramesh Malik &Ors., decided vide SLP (C) 16325/2022.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

M/S. Deepak Steel And Power Ltd vs Enforcement Directorate on 22 September, 2025

"175. It is, thus, clear that the provision in the form of Section 5 provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interest of the person as well as to ensure that the proceeds of crime remain available for being dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002 Act. This provision, in our opinion, has reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act in preventing and regulating money laundering effectively. The constitutional validity including interpretation of Section 5 has already been answered against the petitioners by different High Courts [ (1) Bombay High Court in Radha Mohan Lakhotia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116; (2) High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Rama Raju v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 152; (3) High Court of Gujarat in Alive Hospitality and Food (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 3909; (4) High Court of Karnataka in K. Sowbaghya v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 282; (5) High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok Page 19 of 27 in Usha Agarwal v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Sikk 146; and Delhi High Court in J. Sekar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523] . We do not wish to dilate on those decisions for the view already expressed hitherto.
Orissa High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document

M/S. Deepak Steel And Power Ltd vs Enforcement Directorate on 22 September, 2025

"175. It is, thus, clear that the provision in the form of Section 5 provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interest of the person as well as to ensure that the proceeds of crime remain available for being dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002 Act. This provision, in our opinion, has reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act in preventing and regulating money laundering effectively. The constitutional validity including interpretation of Section 5 has already been answered against the petitioners by different High Courts [ (1) Bombay High Court in Radha Mohan Lakhotia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116; (2) High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Rama Raju v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 152; (3) High Court of Gujarat in Alive Hospitality and Food (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 3909; (4) High Court of Karnataka in K. Sowbaghya v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 282; (5) High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok Page 19 of 27 in Usha Agarwal v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Sikk 146; and Delhi High Court in J. Sekar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523] . We do not wish to dilate on those decisions for the view already expressed hitherto.
Orissa High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document

Poonam Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 February, 2026

6. A Division Bench of this Court, J. Sekar v. Union of India,2 had occasion to deal with identical objections to the composition of single- member-Benches of adjudicating authorities under the PMLA. Rejecting the same, the Court held that under Section 6(5) thereof, the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority may be exercised by single-member Benches. Further, the Court held the requirement of judicial members in administrative tribunals, as laid down in L. Chandra Kumar, would not apply to the adjudicating authority under the PMLA as the nature of the functions of both the authorities were different. The Court noted that the power of administrative tribunals was to the exclusion of the High Courts, whereas, the function of adjudicating authorities under the PMLA was for internal judicial review of the orders passed under Section 5 thereof. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below, for reference:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Nium India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 July, 2024

6. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, argue that that lack of documentation severely undermines the Petitioner's ability to comprehend and effectively respond to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10466/2024 Page 4 of 13 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.08.2024 15:45:58 the Original Application before Respondent No 3. The lack of critical documentation, specifically the "reasons to believe" which form the foundation of the Adjudicating Authority's show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Act, is a substantial impediment that jeopardizes the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. The Authorities below had acted in contravention of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by denying access to "reasons to believe" which are relevant for the Petitioner to effectively defend the proceedings. Thus, fundamental rights of Petitioner have thus been violated. They highlight that the refusal to grant a stay of proceedings in the Original Application forces the Petitioner to participate in the hearings unprepared and unaware of the foundation of the allegation against them, which is fundamentally unfair and unjust. This situation, as per the counsels, demonstrates a failure of the Authorities below to appreciate the systemic deprivation of the Petitioner's statutory rights to document inspection and "reasons to believe", previously recognized by this Court. Petitioner's right to access RUD and "reasons to believe" has been judicially recognised by this Court in JK Tyres and Industries Ltd. vs the Directorate of Enforcement6 and J. Sekar v. Union of India and Ors.7
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 4 Next