$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 984/2015
M/S. QUANTUM SECRUITIES PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Adv with
Mr.Dinkar Singh, Mr.Vimal Nagrath,
Mr. Sidhant Kapur and Ms. Kaveri
Gupta, Advs.

versus

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Sr. Counsel on
Penal with Mr. Kavindra Gill, G.P for
R-1 and Mr. Kamal Singh, (ED).
Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv for
R-2, R-5 & R-6.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Pawan Sharma, Mr. Anuj Shah and
Mr. Nishant Varun, Advs for R-3 &
R-4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
ORDER
% 31.10.2017
In the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner points out that although even as per respondents No. 1 & 2,
the inquiry had been initiated against respondents No. 3 & 4 company
way back in the year 2015; the inquiry has till date not culminated;
respondents No. 1 & 2 are dragging their feet and in fact are trying to
protect the interest of respondents No. 3 & 4. This is the grievance of
the petitioner.
On behalf of respondent No.1, it is pointed out that the
investigation is in progress and an FIR under Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) has also been registered. Proceedings under
the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) have also been
initiated against respondents No. 3 & 4. Respondent No.1 is directed
to file a status report giving the details of the investigation carried on
against respondents No. 3 & 4 till date and this status report shall be
on the affidavit of the Joint Director of the Enforcement Directorate
giving a chronological list of dates when the investigations were
initiated and progress qua the same. Paras 4.1 and 4.2 of the petition
be addressed in that status report.
Respondents No. 2, 5 & 6 also point out that the proceedings
under the Income Tax Act have been initiated against respondents No.
3 & 4 and in fact an attachment order against the assets of
respondents No. 3 & 4 is already there. However, the recovery
cannot be effected for the reason that re-assessment proceedings are
yet to be completed. A status report shall be filed by respondent No.2
giving the details of the status qua the proceedings against
respondents No. 3 & 4.
Respondents No. 3 & 4 represented through learned senior
counsel point out that the adjudication proceedings have been stayed
by the Bombay High Court in W.P. (L) No. 1749/2017 titled New
Delhi Television Limited Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others.
Respondents No. 3 & 4 have also preferred a SLP against the
assessment proceedings being conducted by the Income Tax
Department and those proceedings being sub-judice, recovery cannot
be effected qua the assets of respondents No. 3 & 4. Learned senior
counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 vehemently argues that the present
petition in the present form is not maintainable for the reason that this
Court is not a supervisory monitor who is going to monitor the
manner in which the investigation is going on by the Statutory
Authorities.
For consideration and arguments, list on 08.02.2018.

INDERMEET KAUR, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017
A