2019 (10) TMI 1480 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking permission to file additional status report - HELD THAT - This Court was inclined to fix the matter for arguments on behalf of the respondent- Directorate of Enforcement on 16.10.2019. However, at request of Mr Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, the matter was fixed for today at 3.30 PM. Arguments heard in length from both the sides up to 6.40 P.M.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing response by the respondent.
2. Request for additional time to file status report.
3. Absence of respondent's counsel during the hearing.
4. Request for written arguments and case law from respondent.
5. Late hearing and conclusion of arguments.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a case where a notice was issued to the respondent on 30.09.2019, and time was granted to file a response. The respondent sought permission to file an additional status report, which was allowed. However, on the next hearing date, the respondent's counsel was absent, leading to the matter being reserved for judgment due to the non-appearance of the respondent's Directorate of Enforcement to argue the case. The court emphasized the need for timely conclusion of the matter to pronounce the judgment promptly.

2. The respondent was directed to file written arguments with relied-upon case law within two days. Despite the delay and absence of the respondent's counsel, a request was made by the Additional Solicitor General to hear the matter on the same day, which was agreed upon by the petitioner's Senior Advocate. Consequently, arguments were heard at length from both sides until 6.40 P.M., following which the case was reserved for judgment.

3. The judgment highlights the importance of adherence to timelines and the necessity for all parties to be present during hearings to ensure the expeditious resolution of legal matters. The court's decision to hear arguments despite the delay underscores the commitment to due process and fair representation for all parties involved. The case demonstrates the procedural aspects and the court's approach to managing delays and ensuring a comprehensive hearing before delivering a judgment.