The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday opposed the petition filed by Rohin Modi, son of fugitive diamond dealer Nirav Modi who’s a major accused in ₹13,500-crore fraud at Punjab Nationwide Financial institution (PNB), difficult confiscation of properties purportedly belonging to a belief underneath his personal identify.
Further solicitor basic Anil Singh, representing ED, supported the June 8, 2020 particular court docket order handed underneath part 12 of the Fugitive Financial Offenders (FEO) Act, 2018 ordering confiscation of movable and immovable properties price ₹1,396 crore belonging to Nirav Modi and his companies.
Singh mentioned there was no want to listen to Rohin as his dad and mom Nirav and Ami Modi, each trustees of the belief, had been represented earlier than the particular court docket and had been heard earlier than passing of the order that he has challenged. He additional mentioned that no aid may be granted to Rohin as a result of his father defrauded PNB to the tune of ₹6,498 crore, laundered many of the quantity exterior India, and fled from the nation.
Rohin has moved HC, by advocate Lakshyaved Odhekar, difficult the particular court docket order totally on the grounds that no discover was issued both to Rohin Belief or him earlier than ordering confiscation of belief properties together with a penthouse in Samudra Mahal constructing at Worli and round 40 artworks.
The mentioned properties had been a part of different movable and immovable properties purportedly belonging to Nirav Modi and his companies which had been listed for confiscation.
Rohin’s counsel, advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, identified that part four of FEO Act mandates that ED shall submit checklist of all individuals, aside from the FEO, occupied with or who could have curiosity within the properties sought to be confiscated. He additional added that ED was conscious that Rohin Belief owned the work and the penthouse, however neither the belief nor Rohin was talked about within the checklist of individuals submitted by ED, and no discover was given to them.
Bhandari additionally identified that part 10 of FEO Act gives for a chance of listening to to such individuals, however no such listening to was given to Rohin earlier than passing of the order. He due to this fact urged the excessive court docket to grant the 19-year-old son of the fugitive diamontaire a chance of listening to to level out to the particular court docket that the penthouse can’t be ordered to be confiscated because the premises had been bought in 2006, about 5 years earlier than PNB began extending monetary amenities to Nirav Modi and his companies.
Bhandari additionally urged the court docket to direct ED to keep up established order with respect to the penthouse until Rohin is heard by the court docket.
A division bench of justice Sadhana Jadhav and justice NJ Jamadar, nonetheless, adjourned the matter for additional listening to on Thursday after discovering that the file earlier than it didn’t comprise reasoned order of the particular court docket.