Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.26 seconds)
Documents citing J. Sekar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2018

G.Gopalakrishnan vs The Deputy Director

In fact, in the decision of the Delhi High Court in "J.Sekar versus Union of India & others, etc." (cited supra) relied upon by both learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.Solicitor General for respondents, it was held that less than three Member Adjudicating Authority is permissible under PMLA. The Delhi High Court held that there can be a single Member of Adjudicating Authority and appellate Tribunal under PMLA and such single Member Bench need not mandatorily have judicial members and can be administrative members as well. This case was relied upon by the learned Addl.Solicitor General for the purpose of contending that the issue of coram non-judice is not a valid argument in the teeth of various provisions which explicitly provide for formation of single Member Bench. This Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned Addl.Solicitor http://www.judis.nic.in 187 General that it is not mandatory to have three Member Bench all the time for all adjudication purposes. It is up to the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority to form Bench containing one or two Members as it deems fit in order to adjudicate the cases which are placed for consideration before the Authority.
Madras High Court Cites 175 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Ms Krrish Realtech Pvt Ltd Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Seceratary ... on 3 November, 2025

xvi. Lastly it is averred that the petitioners' contention that the Adjudicating Authority was not properly constituted is untenable. As per Section 6(5)(b) read with Section 6(13) of the PMLA, a bench of the learned Adjudicating Authority can be constituted with a single member as well. Reliance has been placed on Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1154; J. Sekar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523; Alaknanda Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, W.P.(C) 12243/2022; Dyani Anthony Paul v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 4995; and G. Gopalakrishnan v. Deputy Director, ED, W.P.(MD) No. 11454/2018, (Madras High Court Judgment).
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - 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

Aasma Mohammed Farooq And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 5 December, 2018

It is also necessary to state here that the Division Bench in J. Sekar (supra) has not considered, in view of Section 42 of the Act whether this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of entertaining the petition as if an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 26 of the Act, the appeal thereof has to be filed wherever the aggrieved person ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 23 - V K Rao - Full Document

M/S Fateh Homes Pvt.Ltd.And Others vs Special Investigation Team Through Dig ... on 26 March, 2019

A question comes to the mind of this Court that when all these constituents of the SIT who on one hand have initiated individual actions under the relevant Acts governing them and which was being overlapped by findings of the SIT in view of being all based on the wrong-doings of the functioning of the ICRMS and when on one hand in the criminal prosecution as detailed above, the SIT through CBI had filed closure report and on the same very facts, how it could initiate action against the petitioners under the individual Acts rather smacks of vendetta. No doubt, the petitioners have a legitimate legal recourse and remedies available to them under the relevant Acts for the issuance of the orders of the individual constituents by attaching the properties of the petitioners, prosecuting them and so on and so forth, but it cannot be missed that it is the contradictory stands of the constituents of the SIT 11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 05:26:34 ::: CRM-M No.32107 of 2018 (O&M) 12 and the Departments individually which leads this Court to infer that all is not well over the actions that have been initiated under the various Acts by the individual constituents of the SIT. The same is sought to be given impetus by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has sought to hammer home the point that in such an action by the individual constituents of the SIT, Mr.Gurnihal Singh Pirzada is being haunted individually leaving other Directors/Shareholders, who too are responsible in running the affairs and misdemeanors, if any, of the parent company, especially when the petitioners are not wielding sufficient influence in running the affairs of the ICRMS. As has been highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners by going through the notices (Annexures P5, P9, P10, P11, P13, P14, P15, P16 and P17) by the individual constituents of the SIT and which are based on the very facts which are before this Court and was the paramateria of this dispute which has led to the passing of the orders (Annexure P2) by this Court. Furthermore, this Court vide orders dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure P4), has ensured that the SIT would not act beyond what has been assigned to it by virtue of orders dated 16.09.2015 and 27.11.2015 by this Court and to ensure that the SIT does not plunge itself into third party dispute and that the SIT would not use any coercive measures against the then petitioner 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 05:26:34 ::: CRM-M No.32107 of 2018 (O&M) 13 in that matter (Annexure P4) before this Court who happens to be none but Mr.Jatinder Singh Dua, one of the Directors of the ICRMS and which directions certainly need to have been applied to the case of the present petitioners as well, as they are allegedly transacting with the duly authorized Directors of the parent company. Though the claim of learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act against Mr.Gurnihal Singh Pirzada pertains to the same very facts on the report of Punjab Vigilance Bureau, claiming that loan from the ICRMS to one of the petitioners was on the assurance of Mr.Gurnihal Singh Pirzada though might have a far reaching consequence on the final conclusion of investigations by the SIT but at this juncture it would be suffice to hold that factually these are intermingling and that was what had led to constitution of the SIT. Learned counsel for the petitioners claims that Mr.Gurnihal Singh Pirzada though as alleged by the respondent, had appreciable control and substantial interest in the ICRMS but on perusal of the records of this case, nothing tangible has come about and therefore such a stand of the respondent side appears to be a preposterous proposition. More so, it is the own stand of the respondent side that the provisions of these Acts governing the individual constituents of the SIT are very stringent provisions and therefore, 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 05:26:34 ::: CRM-M No.32107 of 2018 (O&M) 14 criminal prosecution have to be initiated against the parties under these special Laws but as is reflected in the own displaced submissions of the two sides, in the closure report as per the claim of the CBI dehors all these allegations. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is sought to be placed on 'Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others' 1974 AIR (SC) 87; 'Aslam Mohd. Merchant vs. Competent Authority and others' 2008(14) SCC 186; 'Sitaram Agarwal & another vs. Subarata Chandra & Damkrishna Dhara & others' 2008(7) SCC 716; 'Shri Joseph Isharat vs. Mrs. Rozy Nishikant Gaikwad' 2017(5) AIR Bom.R 706; 'Dayawati and another vs. Inderjit and others' 1966 AIR (SC) 1423; 'Lakshmi Narayan Guin vs. Niranjan Modak' 1985(1) RCR(Rent) 27; 'Mahanivesh Oils and Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement' 2016(2) RCR(Criminal) 611; 'J. Sekar vs. Union of India & others' 2018(2) RCR(Criminal) 586; 'Satish Mehra vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another' 2013(2) RCR(Criminal) 883; 'Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/s Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill' 2006 AIR (SC) 1445; 'R.Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.R.s and others vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by L.R.s' 1996 AIR (SC) 238; and 'Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & another' 2007(6) SCC 329 but not much can 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 05:26:34 ::: CRM-M No.32107 of 2018 (O&M) 15 be commented upon at this juncture as it might have its implications on the future investigations by the SIT.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document

Mr K Ramakrishna vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 June, 2022

13. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments he relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sekar v. Union of India and others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523, and referring to this judgment, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the Delhi High Court has taken note of the background to the PMLA and the Key provisions of the PMLA and the Judicial Review of the Provisional Attachment Order and taken note of Section 5 and contend that the reasons to believe should constitute reasons has to be recorded that means sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. The reasons to believe has to meet the safeguards in between the second proviso to Section 5(1) of PMLA Act read with Section 5(1) of PMLA that means to satisfy the requirement of law. In the case on hand, the petitioner failed to make out a case to enlarge him on bail.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1   2 Next