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>Petitioners win stay against enforcement officers' summoning after jurisdictional challenge rejected by High Court</h1> <h3>Niraj Tyagi And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others</h3> The Allahabad HC ruled in favor of petitioners seeking stay of summoning by enforcement officers. The court rejected respondent's jurisdictional ... Jurisdiction to entertain petition - Prayer for stay of the summoning of the petitioners, its Officers, Representatives and Managers by the Officers of Respondent Nos.2 - HELD THAT:- The objection taken by Respondent No.4 regarding jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition is ill founded inasmuch as the registration of the E.C.I.R. is consequent to the registration of the F.I.R. dated 15.04.2023 at Greater Noida, U.P. which is very much within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Based on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the objection of Respondent No.4 to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court does not merit consideration and is, accordingly, overruled. It is found that ex-facie the dispute is of civil in nature and has been given a colour of criminal nature. It is also found that Respondent No. 3, YEIDA has not made any attempt to institute civil proceedings against Petitioner No.2, except by lodging the present F.I.R. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of the interim as relief prayed for - List the case in the week commencing 28 August, 2023. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 420 IPC.2. Interim relief for stay of proceedings.3. Jurisdiction of the court.4. Nature of the dispute (civil vs. criminal).5. Previous Supreme Court orders and their implications.Summary:1. Constitutionality of Section 420 IPC:The petitioners sought a declaration that Section 420 of the IPC is 'manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires' to the Constitution of India, specifically violating Articles 14 and 21. They argued that there is no significant difference between Section 417 and Section 420 IPC regarding the offense of cheating concerning the delivery of property, yet Section 420 prescribes a higher punishment without any 'intelligible differentia.'2. Interim Relief for Stay of Proceedings:The petitioners requested interim relief to stay the summoning of their officers, representatives, and managers by Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, arising from the impugned FIR No. 197 of 2023 and ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023. The court considered the facts, including the financial transactions and defaults involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Shipra Group, leading to the sale of pledged shares and properties.3. Jurisdiction of the Court:Respondent No. 4 argued that the Delhi High Court should have jurisdiction over the matter since the ECIR was registered in Delhi. However, the court overruled this objection, stating that the FIR was registered in Greater Noida, which falls within its territorial jurisdiction.4. Nature of the Dispute (Civil vs. Criminal):The court found that the dispute was prima facie civil in nature, given a criminal color by YEIDA. The court noted that YEIDA had not attempted to institute civil proceedings against the petitioners, indicating possible mala fides. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. NEPC (India) Ltd., which discouraged settling civil disputes through criminal prosecution.5. Previous Supreme Court Orders and Their Implications:The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's orders in related cases, which had stayed criminal proceedings and protected the petitioners from coercive actions. The court cited the Supreme Court's directive allowing the petitioners to approach the High Court for relief and emphasized that the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court would continue.Conclusion:The court granted interim relief, staying further proceedings, including summoning of officers, related to FIR No. 197 of 2023 and ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023, as it pertains to the petitioners. The court directed the parties to exchange pleadings within six weeks and scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing 28 August 2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
