RASHMI METALIKS LIMITED Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for stay of two orders of freezing of the accounts of the petitioner no. 1 dtd. 13/7/2022. The orders of freezing, both issued on the same day i.e. 13/7/2022, were made under Sec. 17(1-A) of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Six accounts in the name of the petitioner no. 1 with SBI and one account with ICICI Bank were seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with a further direction that the funds lying in the said accounts shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior permission of the ED.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places the factual genesis of the matter from 2012 to the date on which the freezing orders were issued and decisions of Single and Division Benches of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court with reference to an ECIR case filed against the petitioner no. 1 in 2012. Counsel submits that orders were passed by which leave to file charge-sheets against the petitioner no. 1 was refused and proceedings against the petitioner no. 1 were stayed by the Supreme Court. Counsel also places relevant provisions of The PMLA with reference to action initiated under Ss. 17 and 17(1-A) of The PMLA.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the ED submits that the impugned orders were passed upon incriminating material being found in three premises of the petitioner no. 1 in a search made in the said three premises. Counsel submits that all the statutory formalities for conducting the search and seizure were complied with and further submits that the ED is entitled to investigate in the affairs of the petitioner no. 1 as there is no order of stay of such investigation. It is further submitted that The PMLA contains procedural safeguards including a period of 30 days within which the authority is under an obligation to file an application requesting for retention of the property seized as well as an outer limit of 180 days for provisionally attaching any property.