Gauhati High Court
The Directorate Of Enforcement vs Zoramthari And 4 Ors on 14 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010116372023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/312/2023
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REP. BY SRI JAYANT CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O RAM
KUMAR SINGH, ASST. DIRECTOR, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, 3RD FLOOR, SHAKAR BHWAN BASHEER
BAGH, HYDERABAD, PIN- 500004.
VERSUS
ZORAMTHARI AND 4 ORS.
PROPRIETOR OF M/S THARI ENTERPRISES, R/O H. NO. KB 04/B, H.
LALTHANGA BUILDING, LUNGLEI ROAD, BAWNGKAWN, AIZAWL,
MIZORAM- 796014.
2:MIZORAM RURAL BANK,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER THUAMPUI BRANCH, OPPOSITE AMC
OFFICE, AIZAWL, MIZORAM.
3:INDUSIND BANK,
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,
IST FLOOR, PACHHUNGA AND SONS BUILDING
CHANMARI, AIZAWL, MIZORAM- 796007.
4:IDBI BANK, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
LALTHUAMA BUILDING, E-16,
CHANMARI- RAMHLUN RD
AIZAWL, MIZORAM- 796007.
5:HDFC BANK
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
BAWNGKAWN BRANCH
GROUND FLOOR, NEAR TRAFFIC POINT
BAWNGKAWN, AIZAWL- 796014, MIZORAM
Page No.# 2/3
Linked Case : WA/313/2023
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REP. BY SRI JAYANT CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O RAM KUMAR SINGH, ASST. DIRECTOR
GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE
3RD FLOOR, SHAKAR BHWAN BASHEER BAGH
HYDERABAD, PIN- 500004.
VERSUS
SH. LALRINHLUA AND ANR.
PROPRIETOR M/S LRH ENTERPRISES
R/O H. NO. KB 04/B, H. LALTHANGA BUILDING
LUNGLEI ROAD, BAWNGKAWN, AIZAWL
MIZORAM- 796014.
2:MIZORAM RURAL BANK
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER THUAMPUI BRANCH
OPPOSITE AMC OFFICE, AIZAWL, MIZORAM.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Dhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Jain, Advocate, Mr. D. Borah, Advocate
and Mr. V. Garg, Advocate for respondent
No.1/writ petitioners.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
14.08.2023
Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the view
taken by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.04.2023, passed in WP(Crl.)
No.4/2022 and WP(Crl.) No.5/2022, that the period of 180 days as indicated under
Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, would not be
extended by virtue of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Moto WP(C) No.3/2020],
Page No.# 3/3
is absolutely illegal and unjustified. He urges that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of
Directorate of Enforcement and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2022
SCC OnLine Cal 3959 in correct perspective and hence, the impugned order
deserves to be reversed.
Mr. P. Jain, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.1/writ petitioners
has opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhar.
We are of the view that the matter requires consideration.
Admit.
As the respondent Nos.1 are duly represented, issue notice to the other
respondents only.
Steps for service of notice be taken within 3(three) days whereafter process be
issued to the respondents.
Rule is made returnable on 02.11.2023.
Heard on the prayer for interim relief.
Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and leaving the
respondents/writ petitioners at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition in these two writ
appeals and also to seek modification/vacation of the ad interim stay order, we hereby
direct that the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed in
WP(Crl.) No.4/2022 and WP(Crl.) No.5/2022, shall remain stayed till next date of
listing.
List on 02.11.2023.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
