9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies is involved in several crimes and he was arrested. He was released on bail only on 25.06.2022. The Courts concerned have imposed several conditions including the condition of his appearance before the Investigating Officer concerned and to cooperate with him by furnishing information/documents as sought by him in concluding investigation. It is also not in dispute that one crime is pending in Bangalore and that he has to appear before the Investigating Officer in the said crime. In proof of his hospitalization from 25.06.2022 and 30.06.2022 and sending of sample to biopsy, he has filed medical reports which are not disputed by 2nd respondent/Investigating Agency. No doubt that the adjudicating process as envisaged under Section 8 of the Act is timebound process. Timelines are mentioned therein - the petitioners are entitled to grant of extension of some reasonable time to submit reply to the show cause notice, dated 22.04.2022. According to this Court, two months time from today is reasonable. These Writ Petitions are disposed of granting two months time from today to the petitioners in both the writ petitions to submit their explanation/reply to the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Institutions. It involved the blatant misuse of Power of Attorney given by the clients to the KSBL/the petitioner. During the course of investigation, Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.06/22, dated 08.03.2022 under Section 5(1) of the Act was issued by 2nd respondent attaching various properties. The Original Complaint dated 06.04.2022 was filed by 2nd respondent before 1st respondent in respect of PAO. 1st respondent had issued show cause notice dated 22.04.2022 under Section 8(1) of the Act, to the petitioners herein in respect of the said original complaint. The show cause notice along with original complaint and relied upon documents were served upon various defendants, including the petitioners herein, on 09.05.2022 by hand. The same were also duly served on Sri C. Parthasarathy in Chanchalguda Jail premises in hard as well as soft copy on 10.05.2022. The due date of compliance as per the show cause notice dated 22.04.2022 was 05.06.2022. 6. The petitioners herein had filed a petition vide W.P.No.27051 of 2022 seeking extension of time to submit reply to the said show cause notice. This Court, vide order dated 28.06.2022 granted extension of one month time to the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above said writ petitions. iii) This Court has granted one month time to submit reply to the petitioners and even then they have not submitted reply. On the other hand, they are seeking extension of time without mentioning satisfactory reasons and therefore, they are trying to delay the adjudicating process which is time bound. iv) They have assistance of lawyers, Chartered Accountants, employees and access to the case documents. Even then, instead of submitting reply to the said show cause notice, they are intentionally seeking time. 8. Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by virtue of PAO, dated 08.03.2022, the properties mentioned therein of the petitioners were attached and the same will be continued under attachment until and unless Adjudicating Authority passes an order under Section 8(3) of the Act. Therefore, 2nd respondent-Investigating Agency is under advantageous position by way of present PAO, dated 08.03.2022. No prejudice would be caused to the Investigating Agency. He would further submit that vide above said PAO, dated 08.03.2022, 2nd respondent had attached several properties. Some of the properties were acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not proceed. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s Vikas WSP Ltd. Vs. Directorate Enforcement W.P.(C).No.3551 of 2020 and 12626 of 2020, dated 18.11.2020. In the said case, the Delhi High Court, accepting the said contention of 2nd respondent/Investigating Agency observed that the Adjudicating Authority would be rendered functus officio after expiry of the period of 180 days and could not proceed with the original complaint pending before it. 11. It is relevant to note that vide order dated 28.06.2022 in W.P.No.27051 of 2022, this Court considering the provisions of the Act, contentions of the parties including the principle laid down by Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment held that the facts of the said case are different to the facts in W.P.No.27051 of 2022, as such the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of in W.P.No.27051 of 2022 and the said decision is not helpful to the respondent Department. With the said findings, this Court has granted one month time to the petitioners herein to prepare a proper response to the impugned show cause notice. For the purpose of computing the period of 180 days, the period during whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner is son of Sri C.Parthasarathy, the Chairman of Group of Companies. He is not a Director of any of the Companies. The allegation against him is that he has received salary from the said Group of Companies. Therefore, according to Sri Anil Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, he can submit explanation within the time stipulated by this Court in the interim order. The said interim order was granted on a condition that the petitioner will not be granted any further time and he shall not seek any extension of time. Even then, he has also filed the present writ petition with a request to extend time. 18. According to Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner in W.P.No.30753 of 2022 is son of C. Parthasarathy, Chairman of Karvy Group of Companies. He has to even get information and submit explanation effectively. Unless and until the said defendants submit explanation, 1st respondent/ Adjudicating Authority will not be in a position to pass an order in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to 2nd respondent. For the purpose of computing the time period of 180 days, the period during which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
