Case Law Details
Hiren Panchal Vs. Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
Held that the 180 days window in Section 5 contemplates an end-point whereas the Supreme Court in the Suo Motu writ petition sought to protect the starting-point, which was at the risk of being defeated by reason of the pandemic.
Facts-
The facts in the present case relate to a provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021 relating to immovable properties belonging to M/s. K.P. Garments Private Limited represented by its directors who are the petitioners before this Court. The petitioner no. 1 replied to the impugned order on 3rd January, 2022. There is no other subsequent factual development on record after the petitioner’s reply. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has now called the petitioners for a hearing on 27th June, 2022 in continuation of the ECIR case of 2020 dated 17th February, 2020.
The petitioners are before this Court for contending that the ED cannot travel beyond the statutory limit of 180 days or take the benefit of the orders passed by the Supreme Court for the benefit of litigants during the Covid period. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the question of life and liberty of the petitioners would override all other conditions in the present case. It is also submitted that the 180 days expired on 31st March, 2022; taken from the provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
