9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed the subject petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent-Axis Bank for failing to comply with the judgment dated 14.11.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 9566/2019. 3. By order dated 14.11.2019, this Court had directed that the freeze of the bank account, in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA'), could not be sustained and was quashed. However, it was held that said order would not affect the order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the authority under Section 5 of the PMLA. 4. Petitioner filed the subject petition contending that despite order dated 14.11.2019 quashing the freezing of the bank account, respondent Bank had not permitted the operations of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id account was INR 80,64,056.49 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Fifty Six and Forty Nine Paisa only). It is contended that the Provisional Attachment Order dated 07.10.2019 was challenged by the Petitioner before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by an application, which is still pending. 9. It is contended that on 21.05.2020, the Income Tax Authorities credited an amount of INR 19,22,11,330 as income tax refund pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 in the subject bank account. 10. On 27.05.2020, the Enforcement Directorate directed the Nodal Officer, Axis Bank to immediately transfer and credit the attached amount in four different accounts including the account in question to the Directorate of Enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 226 of the Income Tax Act. However, vide a subsequent communication dated 15.07.2020, Income Tax Department has requested the answering Respondents to release the Bank account in question from the said lien. 17. Respondent have explained that though there was quashing of the debit freeze order, however as there was a provisional attachment, the bank had requested the petitioner to obtain a NOC from the authorities. 18. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent bank that they had sought for a clarification as they are not a party to the proceedings and they wanted to ensure that there was no other proceedings initiated by the parties and further that action taken by the bank was by way of abundant caution and they had no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
