TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arification from the Enforcement Directorate as well as from the Income Tax Department. The cautious approach of the bank seems justified in view of the fact that the Enforcement Directorate has passed a further provisional attachment order attaching the amount of ₹ 19,22,11,271/-, which was the credit balance in the subject account. Petition dismissed. - CONT.CAS(C) 369/2020 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2020 - HON BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Kishore, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Mr. Siddharth Srivastava and Mr. Shivank Diddi, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for Enforcement Directorate Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate for Respondents 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. It is contended that on 31.08.2018, Petitioner preferred a WP. No.9566 of 2019 challenging order dated 19.04.2018 of the Enforcement Directorate freezing bank accounts before this Hon'ble Court to which the Bank was not a party. On 04.10.2018, the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 passed an order exercising powers under section 102 of Cr. PC and directed that bank accounts be remain frozen. 7. On 07.10.2019, Enforcement Directorate passed a Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA provisionally attaching 49 bank accounts of EIEL including the account numbered 913020056551881 being maintained with Axis Bank. 8. It is contended that after the subject order dated 14.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the accounts without their specific instructions. 13. On 22.06.2020, the Enforcement Directorate again wrote to the Bank and directed the Bank to immediately transfer and credit the attached amount to the Directorate of Enforcement. 14. It is contended that on 26.06.2020, the respondent Bank remitted the amount of INR 80,64,056.49 to the bank account of the Enforcement Directorate 15. It is contended that on 07.07.2020, Respondent Bank wrote an email to the Enforcement Directorate, requesting for confirmation or NOC for de-freezing (removal of the debit freeze of the account in question). Respondent Bank also requested the Petitioner to provide NOC from Enforcement Directorate for unfreezing of the accounts. However, Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her provisional attachment order dated 05.08.2020 attaching the amount of ₹ 19,22,11,271/-, which is the credit balance in the subject account of the petitioner with the Axis Bank. 21. In view of the above, I find that there is no wilful default on part of the respondent bank in not permitting operation of the bank account for the period that they were seeking clarification from the Enforcement Directorate as well as the Income Tax Department. The bank seems to have acted only by way of an abundant caution in seeking a clarification from the Enforcement Directorate as well as from the Income Tax Department. The cautious approach of the bank seems justified in view of the fact that the Enforcement Directorate has passed a further pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
