Delhi High Court rejects plea by Supertech owner Ram Kishor Arora challenging his arrest by ED

The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a plea by Supertech owner Ram Kishor Arora who had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) [Ram Kishor Arora v Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr]. .Arora had also prayed that his arrest by the ED be declared illegal.Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed the plea after noting that Arora had failed to show that his arrest was in violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)."There is no violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner. There is nothing or the record to suggest that the petitioner has been denied the right to consult and defended by a legal practioner… In view of the discussion made herein above there is nothing on record to suggest that reason to believe “as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA was not recorded in writing and, therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was arrested illegally,” the Court held..The case against Arora relates to allegations that the Supertech Group diverted, siphoned off, and misappropriated funds of investors and customers.More than two dozen first information reports (FIRs) have been registered against Supertech and its group companies in Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh police on allegations of cheating 670 homebuyers of amounts the tune of ₹164 crore..Arora approached the High Court arguing that he was arrested by the ED on June 27 but was not informed or served the grounds of his arrest.When he was produced before the court the next day, an application was moved by him seeking a copy of the ground of arrest which was opposed by the ED. The special judge then directed the ED to file its reply in the matter.The ED filed its reply and claimed that Arora was informed about the grounds of his arrest and he was made to read and sign the same..Justice Sharma considered the case and held that in view of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case read with the ruling in the V Senthil Balaji case, the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA has to be followed in letter in spirit.“In the present case the grounds of arrest were duly given and notified to the petitioner and he endorsed the same in writing under his signature. The core issue is of being 'informed' and 'as soon as'. It if has been duly notified and brought to the notice at the time of arrest and further disclosed in detail in the remand application, it amounts to be duly informed and served," the Court further observed before dismissing Arora's plea. .Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocates RK Handoo, Yoginder Handoo, Siddharth Bhatti, Aditya Chaudhary, Ashwin Kataria, Garvit Solank, Bhupendra Premi and Yatin Dev appeared for Ram Kishor Arora.The ED was represented through Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and advocates Vivek Gurnani, and Baibhav..[Read Judgment]