Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Sukesh Gupta vs Government Of India on 23 February, 2022

Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 December, 2022

Contending that where prima facie case is not made out, even anticipatory bail can be granted, learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between Sukesh Gupta Vs. Government of India3 and also the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case between Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zonal Office4 and further, the decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case between Dhiraj Sao Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, through the Assistant Director, Raipur5.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

T. Venkattram Reddy, vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2023

ii) Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, brother of Mr. T. Venkatram Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.19163 of 2023, one of the Directors of M/s. DCHL, filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) 7015 of 2017 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the first PAO No.03/2017 and the Delhi High Court granted stay of proceedings arising out of the said PAO. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach appropriate High Court. He filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.9319 of 2019, and this Court vide order dated 10 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.378 of 2023 & batch 29.04.2019 granted stay of proceedings arising out of PAO No.03 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017. Summons were issued to the respondents to appear on 20.03.2023 and they have appeared. Though the ED has recorded statements of the respondents - accused, without there-being proper reasons to believe, arrested the respondents on 13.06.2023. Thus, all of them referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director 1, interim orders in M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement 2; Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited 3 ; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 4 ; Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India 5 ;
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Parasuraman Karthik Iyer vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 8 September, 2023

ii) Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, brother of Mr. T. Venkatram Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.19163 of 2023, one of the Directors of M/s. DCHL, filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) 7015 of 2017 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the first PAO No.03/2017 and the Delhi High Court granted stay of proceedings arising out of the said PAO. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach appropriate High Court. He filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.9319 of 2019, and this Court vide order dated 10 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.378 of 2023 & batch 29.04.2019 granted stay of proceedings arising out of PAO No.03 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017. Summons were issued to the respondents to appear on 20.03.2023 and they have appeared. Though the ED has recorded statements of the respondents - accused, without there-being proper reasons to believe, arrested the respondents on 13.06.2023. Thus, all of them referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director 1, interim orders in M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement 2; Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited 3 ; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 4 ; Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India 5 ;
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Parasuraman Karthik Iyer vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2023

ii) Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, brother of Mr. T. Venkatram Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.19163 of 2023, one of the Directors of M/s. DCHL, filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) 7015 of 2017 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the first PAO No.03/2017 and the Delhi High Court granted stay of proceedings arising out of the said PAO. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach appropriate High Court. He filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.9319 of 2019, and this Court vide order dated 10 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.378 of 2023 & batch 29.04.2019 granted stay of proceedings arising out of PAO No.03 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017. Summons were issued to the respondents to appear on 20.03.2023 and they have appeared. Though the ED has recorded statements of the respondents - accused, without there-being proper reasons to believe, arrested the respondents on 13.06.2023. Thus, all of them referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director 1, interim orders in M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement 2; Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited 3 ; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 4 ; Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India 5 ;
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Shri Mani Oommen vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2023

ii) Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, brother of Mr. T. Venkatram Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.19163 of 2023, one of the Directors of M/s. DCHL, filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) 7015 of 2017 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the first PAO No.03/2017 and the Delhi High Court granted stay of proceedings arising out of the said PAO. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach appropriate High Court. He filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.9319 of 2019, and this Court vide order dated 10 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.378 of 2023 & batch 29.04.2019 granted stay of proceedings arising out of PAO No.03 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017. Summons were issued to the respondents to appear on 20.03.2023 and they have appeared. Though the ED has recorded statements of the respondents - accused, without there-being proper reasons to believe, arrested the respondents on 13.06.2023. Thus, all of them referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director 1, interim orders in M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement 2; Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited 3 ; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 4 ; Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India 5 ;
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Directorate Of Enforcement vs T. Venkattram Reddy on 8 September, 2023

ii) Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, brother of Mr. T. Venkatram Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.19163 of 2023, one of the Directors of M/s. DCHL, filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) 7015 of 2017 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the first PAO No.03/2017 and the Delhi High Court granted stay of proceedings arising out of the said PAO. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach appropriate High Court. He filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.9319 of 2019, and this Court vide order dated 10 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.378 of 2023 & batch 29.04.2019 granted stay of proceedings arising out of PAO No.03 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017. Summons were issued to the respondents to appear on 20.03.2023 and they have appeared. Though the ED has recorded statements of the respondents - accused, without there-being proper reasons to believe, arrested the respondents on 13.06.2023. Thus, all of them referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director 1, interim orders in M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement 2; Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited 3 ; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 4 ; Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India 5 ;
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document
1