PMLA Appellate Tribunal transfers matters involving Nishant Kanodia, Deepak Kochhar to different bench

By ANI | Published: June 1, 2019 05:50 PM2019-06-01T17:50:15+5:302019-06-01T17:55:06+5:30

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Appellate Tribunal has transferred the matters involving ICICI-Videocon loan case accused Nishant Kanodia and Deepak Kochhar to another bench.

PMLA Appellate Tribunal transfers matters involving Nishant Kanodia, Deepak Kochhar to different bench | PMLA Appellate Tribunal transfers matters involving Nishant Kanodia, Deepak Kochhar to different bench

PMLA Appellate Tribunal transfers matters involving Nishant Kanodia, Deepak Kochhar to different bench

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Appellate Tribunal has transferred the matters involving ICICI-Videocon loan case accused Nishant Kanodia and Deepak Kochhar to another bench.

The matters were transferred from the Chairman, Adjudicating Authority to the Member (Law), Adjudicating Authority, on Friday.

Earlier in March, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had conducted various raids in the premises of compes related to Kanodia and Kochhar and had seized various documents and electronic records under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Pursuant thereto, an application was filed by the agency before the adjudicating authority under the PMLA, 2002.

Following which a show cause notice was issued by the adjudicating authority to compes connected with Kanodia and Kochhar, calling upon to justify as to why the documents seized should not be permitted to be retained.

The said notice was challenged by the compes before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA. Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Mudit Jain appearing for the compes argued that the order was passed without consideration of the record, which shows that a view was already framed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The bench headed by Justice Manmohan, retired from the Delhi High Court, heard the appeals and passed an order on May 30 where it observed, "With regards to other submission of the appellants that the discrepancies are so glaring, the same hearing officer may not be able to go against his own finding as the reason to believe orders passed by him on the face of record are defective and the notice under Section 8(1) has been issued on the basis of the said defective reason to believe which would show that while issuing the notice, even the authorised officer has not cared to see the materials which were seized, otherwise such a mistake would not have happened."

"In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, this tribunal directs that after filing the reply, the hearing shall be conducted by other Member (Law), who shall consider all the contentions of the appellants and decide the same on merit," the order said further.

The bench also observed, "In the interest of justice and equity, it has transferred the matters from the Chairman, Adjudicating Authority D. Singhal to the bench of Member (Law), Adjudicating Authority Tushar V Shah."

( With inputs from ANI )

Open in app