TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 5(3) of the 2002 Act is not covered by said limitation - HELD THAT:- The language of Section 5(3) of the 2002 Act is very clear as to the period of 180 days operating in respect of orders of attachment and says in positive language that such order of attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of such period. The said restriction/stipulation does not relate to any period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner argues that, despite a provisional order of attachment dated January 31, 2020 passed by the Deputy Director, Office of the Special Director, Eastern Region, Enforcement Directorate, respondent no.2 having spent its force after 180 days therefrom in terms of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate has been continuing to issue notices fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said orders, thereby extending the period of 180 days further. However, the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case as regards the respondent nos.1 and 2 having acted de hors Section 5(3) of the 2002 Act in continuing further proceedings in terms of the order of attachment dated January 31, 2020, since prima facie it appears that the extension granted by the Supreme Court was res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter. It is made clear that the affidavit(s)-in-opposition and reply shall comprehensively cover the contentions raised in the supplementary affidavit as well. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are restrained from issuing any notice of hearing/taking any other action on the basis of the provisional order of attachment dated January 31, 2020 until further orders. The matter shall next be enliste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
