Delhi High Court
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of ... on 17 February, 2017
$-49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.02.2017
+ W.P.(C) 274/2017
63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ankur Saighal, Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Mr. Himanshu Satija and Mr.
Anupam D. Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Sumit Misra, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGEMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent adjudicating
authority to hear and dispose of the Original Complaint (O.C.)
No.645/2016 and Original Complaint (O.C.) No.663/2016 together as
one in a consolidated manner.
2. It is contended that both the complaints pertain to attachment of
properties of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the alleged circumstances leading to the provisional
attachment of the assets of the petitioner emanate from the same set of
facts. Even the relied upon documents are virtually the same
excepting that there are two additional documents in O.C. No.
663/2016, which also are alleged to be the basis of contentions in
O.C. No. 645/2016 .
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the
objections raised and the response given by the petitioner to both the
complaints as well as the source of funds for acquisition of the assets,
sought to be attached in both the complaints, is identical.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that both the
complaints have been placed before different adjudicating officers and
separate hearing of the two complaints would to lead to multiplicity of
hearings as well as wastage of judicial time of the two adjudicating
officers. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it
would be expedient and also in the interest of justice if both the
complaints are heard by one officer in a consolidated manner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in so far as the
O.C. No. 645/2016 is concerned, the same has already been finally
heard and the orders have been reserved, so there is no question to
hear the O.C. No. 645/2016 along with O.C. No. 663/2016 and the
hearing in O.C. No. 663/2016 will have to be held separately.
6. Since the proceedings in O.C. No. 645/2016 are at the stage
where arguments have already been concluded and the judgment is
reserved, the proceedings thereof cannot be re-opened or the said
complaint argued afresh alongwith O.C. No. 663/2016. Thus there is
no question of consolidating O.C. No. 645/2016 with O.C. No.
663/2016.
7. I find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, since the alleged facts leading to filing of the
original complaints and the proposed action of attachment as well as
the objections to the complaint and the source of funds disclosed by
the petitioners is alleged to be identical, hearing of the O.C. No.
663/2016 by the same officer who has already heard the arguments in
O.C. No. 645/2016 may be expedient and may save judicial time of
the adjudicating officer.
8. Since, the matter of marking and distributing of complaints to
different adjudicating officer is an administrative function, within the
discretionary powers of the Chairperson, who would in exercise of his
discretion, distribute the complaints keeping in view the
administrative convenience, no mandamus would normally be issued
by this court, interfering in the exercise of the discretionary power of
the Chairperson.
9. However, in view of the request now made by the petitioners,
that hearing of the O.C. No. 663/2016 by the same adjudicating
officer who has heard the arguments in O.C. No. 645/2016, would be
expedient and would save judicial time, the Chairperson, adjudicating
authority is directed to take a fresh view in the matter.
10. It is clarified that in case the Chairperson is still of the view that
circumstances and administrative exigencies do not warrant that O.C.
No. 663/2016 be heard by the same adjudicating authority, who has
heard arguments in O.C. No. 645/2016, then the Complaint would be
proceeded with by the same adjudicating authority before whom it is
already placed.
11. Since the proceedings are listed for hearing on 21.02.2017 and
the statutory period for disposing of the complaint is expiring on
23.02.2017, the Chairperson is directed to examine the matter before
the scheduled date of hearing so that the hearing is not disturbed, on
this count.
12. It is clarified that this direction has been issued in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case and without the same being
treated as a precedent.
13. It is made clear that no allegation or apprehension of any nature
has been expressed by the petitioners with regard to the Adjudicating
authority and this order has been passed only keeping in mind the
contention of expediency and saving of judicial time.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 17, 2017/'rs' SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
