Delhi High Court observed it may lack jurisdiction to entertain petitions by two Anil Ambani group firms challenging Enforcement Directorate attachments in a laundering case. Justice Purushaindra Kaurav indicated proceedings should be filed in Mumbai, where companies are registered.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court remarked that it might lack the jurisdiction to hear petitions from two Anil Ambani group companies regarding the attachment of their properties by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav suggested that since the company is registered in Mumbai, the proceedings should be initiated there.
The Court inquired,
“Why should we entertain here? Why should it not go to Mumbai?”
ALSO READ: Defamatory Case: Anil Ambani Withdraws Suit Against Cobrapost & Economic Times
The ED is investigating Anil Ambani’s companies for alleged misuse of bank loans, including accusations of loan evergreening, diversion to related parties, routing through shell entities, and siphoning of funds, which have resulted in significant non-performing assets (NPAs) and fraud declarations by banks.
The ED claimed,
“From around 2010-12 onwards, RCOM [Reliance Communications] and its group companies raised thousands of crores from Indian banks, of which Rs 19,694 crore still remains outstanding. These assets turned NPA, with five banks having declared RCOM’s loan accounts as fraud. ED investigation revealed that loans taken by one entity from one bank were utilized for repayment of loans taken by other entities from other banks, transfer to related parties, and investments in mutual funds, which was in contravention to the terms and conditions of the sanction letter of the loans,”
According to reports, the ED has provisionally attached properties worth several thousand crores associated with various entities of the Reliance Anil Ambani Group under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Reliance Realty and Campion Properties Limited, argued that the Delhi High Court is competent to hear the petitions and that they have a valid case.
In response, advocates Zoheb Hossain and Vivek Gurnani, representing the ED, pointed out that the adjudicating authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is already handling the case and that the petitioners should present their arguments before this authority.
After a brief hearing, Justice Kaurav instructed the petitioners to submit concise notes on the issue of maintainability. The case is set to be heard again on January 30.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
