TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Allows Transactions in Frozen Accounts, Suspends Limitation Period</h1> <h3>M/s HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT. LTD., S.N. KAPOOR EXPORTS, SNB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ORBIT EXPORTS LTD., SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD., JK TYRE AND INDUSTRIES LTD., MAXIS INDUSTRIES, SHRI VISHWANATH OVERSEAS, KP SANGHVI AND SONS LLP & ANR., M/s. BLOSSOM FABRICS LIMITED, PROMPT INTERNATIONAL, M/s MAYA TRADES, EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, M/s SUPRINT TEXTILES JAIPUR PVT LTD Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR., UNION OF INDIA & ANR.</h3> The High Court allowed the Petitioners to transact in their bank accounts by complying with previous orders to deposit the disputed amount or secure it ... Money Laundering - it is the grievance of the Petitioners that since the Enforcement Directorate has not written any further communications limiting the extent to which the Petitioners’ bank accounts are frozen and hence the banks are not lifting the said freezing order - HELD THAT:- Since there is no dispute that the initial freezing orders stand amended and limited the Petitioners in these cases are permitted to approach the banks with the present order, in order to ensure that their bank accounts are duly de-frozen, so long as the amounts, as contained in the amendment of attachment order dated 28th December 2020, are maintained either by way of a deposit or a bank guarantee or in any other manner. The limitation period for challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present writ petitions - List for hearing on 2nd March, 2021 at 2:30 P.M. Issues:1. Freezing of bank accounts by Enforcement Directorate without further communication.2. Grievance regarding the continued freezing of bank accounts despite amended orders.3. Petitioners' right to approach banks for de-freezing accounts.4. Suspension of limitation period for challenging Adjudicating Authority's order.5. Permission for parties to obtain electronic court records and file a common compilation.Analysis:The High Court noted that the Petitioners were allowed to transact in their bank accounts by depositing the disputed amount or securing it through a Bank Guarantee, as per previous orders. However, the Petitioners raised concerns that the Enforcement Directorate had not communicated any further limitations on the freezing of their accounts, leading to banks not lifting the freezing order. The Court clarified that since the initial freezing orders were amended and limited, the Petitioners could approach the banks with the current order to ensure de-freezing, provided the specified amounts were maintained through deposit, bank guarantee, or other means. The Court also suspended the limitation period for challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order during the pendency of the writ petitions.Furthermore, the Adjudicating Authority had continued the freezing order on the Enforcement Directorate's application, subject to the High Court's orders. The Court scheduled a further hearing for the matter, allowing parties to obtain electronic court records for reference and submit a common compilation. The judgment emphasized the Petitioners' right to approach banks for de-freezing their accounts in compliance with the amended orders, ensuring the specified amounts were maintained as directed. The suspension of the limitation period aimed to provide parties with adequate time to address the issues raised in the writ petitions effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
