TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice of the learned Single Judge for release of such amount and the seizure orders have been affirmed by the competent authority under Section 37A(2) of the Act, no such provisional release could have been ordered by disposing of the writ petition itself. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also brought to the notice of this Court the press release issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 24.02.2022 and the same reflects that even the banking licence of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has been cancelled. However, as this Court is not dealing with the cancellation of licence, no comment has been offered in respect of such cancellation. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has stated that he does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the Impugned Seizure Order No.01/2021 bearing No.F.No.T-3/HYZO/75/2021 dated 26 August 2021 read with Order bearing No.F.No.T-3/HYZO/75/2021 dated 12 October 2021, Seizure Order No.02/2021 bearing no.T- 3/HYZO/75/2021 dated 30 September, 2021; and Seizure Order No.03/2021 bearing no.T- 3/HYZO/75/2021 dated 15 December, 2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 as being illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and destructive of the Petitioner s fundamental rights; and restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents and all persons acting on their behalf from taking any coercive action in furtherance of the Impugned Seizure Order no.01/2021 bearing no.F.No.T-3/HYZO/75/2021 dated 26 August 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores was never seized by the ED. Therefore, the question of releasing the same does not arise. He has categorically stated that not a single rupee has been released in the matter so far out of ₹ 270.00 crores attached by the ED. It has been further clarified that the amount of ₹ 9.68 crores was lying in the bank account of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the bank was permitted by the ED to disburse the aforesaid amount. He has further stated that it is not a case where the amount was seized and later on released by the ED. The facts of the case reveal that before the learned Single Judge, though a prayer for quashment of seizure orders dated 26.08.2021, 30.09.2021 and 15.12.2021 was made, an interlocutory applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised Officer prescribed by the Central Government has reason to believe that any foreign exchange, foreign security, or any immovable property, situated outside India, is suspected to have been held in contravention of section 4, he may after recording the reasons in writing, by an order, seize value equivalent, situated within India, of such foreign exchange, foreign security or immovable property: Provided that no such seizure shall be made in case where the aggregate value of such foreign exchange, foreign security or any immovable property, situated outside India, is less than the value as may be prescribed. (2) The order of seizure along with relevant material shall be placed before the Competent Authority, appointed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard to the aggrieved person and representatives of the Directorate of Enforcement, shall pass an appropriate order as it deems fit, including setting aside of the seizure made under sub-section (1). (5) Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Competent Authority may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (6) Nothing contained in section 15 shall apply to this section. The aforesaid statutory provision provides for a remedy of appeal and therefore, as now an order dated 04.02.2022 is in existence, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner shall certainly be free to prefer an appeal or to avail the other remedies available under the law. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
