2G Appeal
2G Appeal
Litigation News

[2G Appeal] Delhi HC issues notice in applications for early hearing by CBI, ED

The Court has sought response from all respondents i.e. acquitted persons and listed the matter for hearing on September 21.

Aditi Singh

The Delhi High Court today issued notice in applications for early hearing filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate in connection with their appeals against the acquittal of all accused persons in the 2G spectrum case. (ED vs A Raja)

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi directed all Respondents i.e. acquitted persons to file their response to the applications.

While drawing the Court's attention to the "larger issue" in the case, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay Jain had earlier urged the Court to expeditiously decide the CBI and ED's leave to appeal, especially keeping in mind Justice Sethi's retirement.

Justice Sethi, who has heard by CBI's submissions on the leave to appeal at length, is set to demit office on November 30.

The scheduled date of hearing in 2G appeals is October 12.

Consequently, formal applications were moved by the agencies to facilitate a decision on the leave to appeal by Justice Sethi.

Issuance of notice was opposed by Advocate Vijay Aggarwal who appeared for certain acquitted parties. He informed the Court that the agencies' early hearing was dismissed by the predecessor Bench in 2018 and that the retirement of a Judge was not a justifiable ground.

Today, the Court also reserved orders in two applications seeking to modify an earlier order on the maintenance of the status quo with respect to the release of properties attached in the money laundering case.

The applications were preferred by Conwood Construction & Developers and Dynamix Reality. Both entities were acquitted in the money laundering case.

Appearing for the parties, Advocate Aggarwal contended that the properties should be released in lieu of bank guarantees or indemnity bonds as no purpose was being achieved by their continued attachment.

Opposing the modification application, ASG Jain argued that the status quo order was passed in exercise of power under Sections 482 and 378 CrPC after the Court formed a prima facie view that the matter required scrutiny.

He stated that in the interest of public, the application should either be dismissed or kept in abeyance.

After the acquittal of all accused by the CBI Court in December 2017, the CBI and the ED had filed an appeal in the High Court in March 2018.

Since then, the case has lingered and is yet to cross the hurdle of grant of leave to appeal by the High Court.

The matter would he heard next on September 21.

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com