ED opposes Nirav’s son’s plea against seizure of properties | Mumbai news - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

ED opposes Nirav’s son’s plea against seizure of properties

ByKanchan Chaudhari, Mumbai
Aug 11, 2020 01:15 AM IST

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday opposed the petition filed by Rohin Modi, son of fugitive diamond trader Nirav Modi who is a prime accused in 13,500-crore fraud at Punjab National Bank (PNB), challenging confiscation of properties purportedly belonging to a trust under his own name.

HT Image
HT Image

Additional solicitor general Anil Singh, representing ED, supported the June 8, 2020 special court order passed under section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act, 2018 ordering confiscation of movable and immovable properties worth 1,396 crore belonging to Nirav Modi and his firms.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

Singh said there was no need to hear Rohin as his parents Nirav and Ami Modi, both trustees of the trust, were represented before the special court and were heard before passing of the order that he has challenged. He further said that no relief can be granted to Rohin because his father defrauded PNB to the tune of 6,498 crore, laundered most of the amount outside India, and fled from the country.

Rohin has moved HC, through advocate Lakshyaved Odhekar, challenging the special court order primarily on the grounds that no notice was issued either to Rohin Trust or him before ordering confiscation of trust properties including a penthouse in Samudra Mahal building at Worli and around 40 artworks.

The said properties were part of other movable and immovable properties purportedly belonging to Nirav Modi and his firms which were listed for confiscation.

Rohin’s counsel, advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, pointed out that section 4 of FEO Act mandates that ED shall submit list of all persons, other than the FEO, interested in or who may have interest in the properties sought to be confiscated. He further added that ED was aware that Rohin Trust owned the paintings and the penthouse, but neither the trust nor Rohin was mentioned in the list of interested persons submitted by ED, and no notice was given to them.

Bhandari also pointed out that section 10 of FEO Act provides for an opportunity of hearing to such interested persons, but no such hearing was given to Rohin before passing of the order. He therefore urged the high court to grant the 19-year-old son of the fugitive diamontaire an opportunity of hearing to point out to the special court that the penthouse cannot be ordered to be confiscated as the premises were purchased in 2006, about five years before PNB started extending financial facilities to Nirav Modi and his firms.

Bhandari also urged the court to direct ED to maintain status quo with respect to the penthouse till Rohin is heard by the court.

A division bench of justice Sadhana Jadhav and justice NJ Jamadar, however, adjourned the matter for further hearing on Thursday after finding that the file before it did not contain reasoned order of the special court.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On