Foreign exchange adjudication delay concerns did not justify modifying earlier directions after proceedings had begun.

A request to modify earlier directions was rejected because the apprehension of delay in Enforcement Directorate adjudication had been sufficiently addressed by later developments. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already directed expeditious completion of the pending proceedings, notices had been issued, and the adjudication had commenced. In that context, and given the expectation under the foreign exchange regime that such proceedings conclude within a reasonable period, no modification of the earlier directions was warranted. The application was disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier direction required modification in view of the apprehension that the adjudication proceedings before the Enforcement Directorate would be prolonged.

Analysis: The application for modification was considered in the light of subsequent developments, including the Supreme Court's direction to the Enforcement Directorate to complete the pending proceedings expeditiously and the information that notices had already been issued and the proceedings had commenced. The Court also noted that, under the governing foreign exchange regime, the adjudication was expected to be concluded within a reasonable period, and the concern regarding undue delay had been sufficiently addressed.

Conclusion: The earlier directions did not require modification, and the application was disposed of.

---