Court allows petitioner to operate frozen bank accounts, cites legal precedents, sets compliance requirements

The Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to proceed with analyzing the data submitted by the petitioner regarding payment details. The petitioner's argument against the legality of debit freeze orders was supported by legal precedents, and the Court accepted the submission of a bank guarantee. Subject to conditions, the petitioner was permitted to operate the frozen bank accounts. The case was listed for final disposal on a mutually agreed date, with additional compliance requirements outlined for both parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with communication from Enforcement Directorate for providing payment details.
2. Legality of debit freeze orders under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Distinction between powers under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and powers under PMLA.
4. Submission of bank guarantee by the petitioner.
5. Permission to operate bank accounts subject to conditions.
6. Listing of the petition for final disposal.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. Compliance with Communication from Enforcement Directorate: The petitioner was called upon by the Enforcement Directorate to provide details supporting payments totaling to Rs. 2826 crores. The petitioner responded by submitting required data on a pen drive, which was acknowledged by the Directorate. The respondents requested time to analyze the voluminous data, and the Court directed the Directorate to proceed accordingly.

2. Legality of Debit Freeze Orders: The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the debit freeze orders were unsustainable as the bank account details were known to the respondents. Reference was made to Section 17 of the PMLA, contending that accounts with available details should not have been subjected to a freeze. Legal precedents from the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court were cited to support this argument.

3. Distinction Between Powers under Different Acts: The Enforcement Directorate argued that the powers under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act are distinct from those under the PMLA. They emphasized that the freeze orders were based on material found during a search, indicating the presence of proceeds of crime in the bank accounts. The Court noted that this argument required further consideration.

4. Submission of Bank Guarantee: The petitioner offered to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 950 crores, considering the quantified proceeds of crime at Rs. 1200 crores. This offer was accepted by the Court, and it was deemed that the bank guarantee, along with the frozen account funds, would protect the interests of the respondents during the case.

5. Permission to Operate Bank Accounts: Subject to the submission of the bank guarantee, the petitioner was allowed to operate the bank accounts under freeze, with the condition that Rs. 251 crores in credit on the date of the order should be maintained at all times. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide details of remittances every 48 hours to the Enforcement Directorate.

6. Listing for Final Disposal: The petition was scheduled for final disposal on a specified date as jointly requested by the parties, with further directions for compliance and procedural formalities.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's directives in response to each issue.

---