AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman
MP-PMLA-8380/DLI/2021 (U.H.)
The appellant/applicant’ counsel has filed the urgent application on dated 04.03.2021 for urgent hearing of the matter on the grounds mentioned
therein. The prayer for urgent hearing is considered and allowed by fixing the case for today vide order dated 08.03.2021. The urgent application is
disposed of accordingly.
MP-PMLA-8546/DLI/2021 (Misc.)
The appellant/applicant’ counsel has filed the miscellaneous application on dated 04.03.2021 on behalf of the appellant/applicant for placing
additional documents on record in the matter. The grounds for filing the application are mentioned in the said application. Issue notice. Mr. Nitesh
Rana, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (ED) accepts notice and sought ten days time to file the reply to the same. His prayer is considered and
allowed. Ten days time has been granted to the respondent no.1 (ED) to file reply to the application, with an advance copy to be served on the other
side.
MP-PMLA-8171/DLI/2021 (Misc.) in FPA-PMLA-3234/DLI/2019
Reply to the application has not been filed by the respondent no.1(ED).
The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is waiting for the approval for
creation of a second charge for the sanctioning of Rs.25 Crore issued by YES Bank, which is being sanctioned under Emergency Credit Line
Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) and is 100% secured by the Govt. of India and that the respondent no.1 (ED) has earlier been granted 10 days time to
file the reply but even after one month, the reply is not filed by the respondent. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as it is a time bound
scheme, the matter be heard at the earliest and no further time be granted to the respondent (ED) for filing any reply.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 (YES Bank) Mr. Madhav Khurana, Advocate submitted that the Bank is the primarily lender and it is the
first time in many years or say in a very long time that the Indian Government is acting as a Sovereign Guarantor in the present scheme.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (ED) Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate is seeking 10 more days time to file the reply to the
application and submitted that the legal and constructive possession of the property in question is still with the Enforcement Directorate and further
stated that a last chance may be granted to the respondent no.1 (ED) to file the reply to the application. The adjournment prayer is strongly objected
by learned senior counsel for the appellant.
Heard all the parties. In the interest of justice and as a last opportunity, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (ED) is granted ten days time to
file the reply to the application, with an advance copy to the other side. No further time would be granted to the respondent no.1 (ED) to file the same.
With the consent of all the parties, list the applications on 12th April, 2021.