Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the Rs 6,000 crore Ponzi scam, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ. while observing that Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) had ample time to file a counter affidavit, concluded that the interim order issued on 6-09-2024 should be made absolute, maintaining the same terms and conditions as initially set.
The Court noted the sequence of events regarding the matter, stating that a notice was initially issued on 06-09-2024 and served on 01-10-2024. On 21-10-2024, the ED requested additional time. Despite the notice being served 20 days prior, the Court granted a one-month extension for the ED to file a counter affidavit. In the meantime, the accused submitted two affidavits. The first affidavit, dated 19-10-2024, confirmed that the accused had cooperated with the investigation by attending on three specific dates and submitting the required documents. The second affidavit, dated 26-11-2024, detailed the accused’s continued cooperation, with attendance on additional investigation dates and the submission of further documents, as outlined in a letter dated 21-11-2024.
The Court observed that ED had ample time to file a counter affidavit. In light of the facts presented, the Court concluded that the interim order issued on 6-09-2024 should be made absolute, maintaining the same terms and conditions as initially set.
In the order dated 06-09-2024, the Court had directed that the accused shall not be arrested by the Enforcement Directorate subject to the condition that the accused shall always cooperate for investigation.
In the order dated 06-09-2024, the Court had granted interim relief to the accused by directing that he shall not be arrested by ED, if he continues to cooperate fully with the investigation.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with the interim order being finalized and upheld as per the Court’s decision.
[M. Muthukumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3603, decided on 29-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR Mr. A K Singh, Adv. Mr. Preetish Sahu, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Akshita Choubey, Adv. Ms. Yashvi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Gandhi, Adv.\
