DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

HC issues notice to AJL, Motilal Vohra over ED’s petition

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Motilal Vohra. PTI file photo
Advertisement

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 10

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice to the Associated Journals Limited and senior Congress leader Moti Lal Vohra on Tuesday for November 7 on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Advertisement

The ED’s petition had challenged the validity of ‘status quo’ order passed by an appellate authority in favour of the Associated Journals Limited on June 4 on its appeal against the attachment of a plot in Panchkula, Sector 6.

The Enforcement Directorate had registered an enforcement case information report (ECIR) on July 15, 2016, against Associated Journals Limited on the allegation that Haryana’s former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda had re-allotted the plot to Associated Journals Limited on a request made by Moti Lal Vohra by ignoring the provisions of law and the opinion of all the officers against such re-allotment. After notice, the Enforcement Directorate passed an order of provisional attachment of property on December 1, 2018, which was confirmed by adjudicating authority on May 21. Associated Journals Limited filed an appeal against the orders and the appellate authority in Delhi, vide order dated June 4, ordered the maintenance of ‘status quo’ of the property. 

Advertisement

Appearing before the Bench for the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain and advocate Sharmila Sharma submitted that plot was re-allotted by Hooda in utter violation of the law of the land. It was found that the whole transaction was the result of a serious crime and was in violation of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Jain added the appellate authority had no power to grant any interim order in favour of the appellant. Referring to Section 26 of the Act, Jain added the appellate authority could modify, rescind or set aside the order, but it was not having power to grant interim order to the appellant.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts