We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Sanjay Basu vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 April, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
By its order dated 11th April, 2023 the Supreme Court after setting aside that part of the impugned order by which this court declared that the petitioner would not be required to attend the office of the Enforcement Directorate was set aside and the entire application sent back to this court "to decide the main writ petition in accordance with law".
...
It appears that during the search and seizure operation carried out by the Enforcement Directorate in the residence of the writ petitioner certain articles like laptop, mobile phones etc. were seized by it from his custody.
In respect of this seizure on 29th March, 2023, the said authority issued a show cause to the writ petitioner under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. With the notice was enclosed reasons in support of it under Section 8(1) of the said Act. He was asked to file a written reply to it on or before 18th May, 2023, as to why the said articles should not be permitted to be retained by the Enforcement Directorate. In paragraph 4 of the said statement of reasons attached to the notice it was mentioned that the writ petitioner received Rs. 83.25 lakhs from Pincon Group of Companies and the firm which he runs Aquilaw received Rs. 23 lakhs. In the 4th last line of paragraph 4, it was specifically stated that the said sum received was "for providing legal assistance". However, the statement added that no official engagement letter issued by Pincon in favour of the firm or the writ petitioner could be produced or is available.
...
> In the meantime the petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The adjudicating authority under the P.M.L. Act may proceed to adjudicate whether to retain the articles or not but keep the adjudication in a sealed cover and not communicate the same pending a decision in this writ application. This is so because the validity of the whole action of the Enforcement Directorate is under challenge in the writ and prima facie only a receipt of Rs. 83 lacs by the petitioner and Rs. 23 lacs by his firm from Pincon is on record. The petitioner claims it as professional receipt.
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/57816064