#BombayHighCourt is hearing the plea by #AnilDeshmukh seeking quashing of ED summons issued in money laundering case.
@AnilDeshmukhNCP
@dir_ed
@AnilDeshmukhNCP
@dir_ed
Sr Adv Vikram Chaudhri appearing for Deshmukh: Deshmukh is running helter skelter, he needs protection.
Lekhi opposes.
Lekhi opposes.
Chaudhri: While the matter is pending, they have been creating undue sensation, violating norms and selectively leaking documents and info.
Chaudhri: They haven’t given ECIR copies or any document and then they say that I am not cooperating.
#BombayHighCourt
#BombayHighCourt
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appears virtually.
SG: There is a noting by the registry I believe that a maintainability issue has been raised; Whether the plea should be before single bench or division. It cannot be a choice of the litigant.
SG: There is a noting by the registry I believe that a maintainability issue has been raised; Whether the plea should be before single bench or division. It cannot be a choice of the litigant.
ASG Anil Singh points out to the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules which state that the petition lies before the Division Bench.
ED also point out that Deshmukh has a pending plea in Supreme Court.
Chaudhri points out the prayers in the present case.
Chaudhri: I have limited prayers in this petition and the set of prayers in SC are different.
Chaudhri points out the prayers in the present case.
Chaudhri: I have limited prayers in this petition and the set of prayers in SC are different.
Chaudhri: But I want to keep both petitions alive. As for whether the matter falls before Single or DB judge, I am submitting that this petition lies before single judge.
Chaudhri reads out the appellate side rules.
Justice Sk Shinde: Your prayers are not covered by the clauses in this rules which means that your plea should lie before the DB.
Chaudhri: Matters which lie under PMLA fall within criminal jurisdiction…
Court: But I am not on merits. I am asking a question to myself, whether this lies before DB or not.
Court: But I am not on merits. I am asking a question to myself, whether this lies before DB or not.
Lekhi: My lordships is correct. Prayer (a) is for quashing for summons, but the rules refer to orders quashing.
Prayer (i) is consequential releif according to them. But I find it to be independent.
Prayer (i) is consequential releif according to them. But I find it to be independent.
Lekhi: if it is consequential, then then it has to be decided by a constitutional court not jnder 482. And if it is independent then also it is not before this.
Chaudhri: Let them place their objection in writing.
Mehta: We are not objecting, we are merely assisting the court in the objection raised by registry.
Mehta: We are not objecting, we are merely assisting the court in the objection raised by registry.
Adv Aniket Nikam points out that the rule read by Singh was Chapter 17 for petitions styled under Art 226/227 petitions. He reads rules under Chapter 1 of the appellate side rules which allows for 482 before single judge.
Singh: Even if this is a simple application under Sec 482 even without Art 226 and 227, it still lies before 482. Chapter 17 ruke 8 clarifies that all categories mentioned herein, all matters shall lie before DB.
Singh: My submission is that the petition should be before DB.
Mehta: Your lordships have jurisdiction under 226 and 482. The question here is there is no intra court appeal. So there is no right to be taken away. If the registry says there is confusion let it go before the division bench.
Mehta: No prejudice will be caused otherwise.
Chaudhri: I will leave it to the Court. The rule is clear. My lords will take it as preliminary objection and proceed.
Chaudhri: I will leave it to the Court. The rule is clear. My lords will take it as preliminary objection and proceed.
Mehta: Your lordships can hear this. We will assist for sure.
In case of confusion always err on safer side. What the DB can decide, the Single judge may not be able to decide. What the Single judge can decide, the DB can also always decide.
In case of confusion always err on safer side. What the DB can decide, the Single judge may not be able to decide. What the Single judge can decide, the DB can also always decide.
Chaudhri: There is no error at all. So there is no question of safe or not.
Mehta: and just to clarify, this is not an error, it is a query by the registry.
Singh: Let me also point out then there are many petitions pending in this court for quashing of ED summons, all beofre division bench.
Mehta asks if a note needs to be given..
Chaudhri: If they are taking objection let me also respond..
Mehta: Let the note be.. this is not adversary issue..
Chaudhri: If they are taking objection let me also respond..
Mehta: Let the note be.. this is not adversary issue..
Court: I will deal with this issue as a query of the registry and not as a preliminary objection.
Mehta: Prayer (i) is for constituting SIT.
Chaudhri: So let me state here, that this prayer will not be pressed for now.
Chaudhri: So let me state here, that this prayer will not be pressed for now.
Mehta: He is saying for now.
Chaudhri: So then there is challenge on the nature of prayers. There is also issue of maintainability based on the bench.
Chaudhri: So then there is challenge on the nature of prayers. There is also issue of maintainability based on the bench.
Nikam: The summons are issued under Section 50 PMLA. And that is maintainable before this bench.
Mehta: The State has no role in this..
Chaudhri: Mr. Nikam appears for Deshmukh brother!
Chaudhri: Mr. Nikam appears for Deshmukh brother!
Bombay High Court reserves the verdict on objection of the registry. To be pronounced on Monday @ 3 pm.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
