Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Union of India - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 564 (HC-Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anish Dayal, J.
- Vikram Chaudhari, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advs., Avi Singh, Shambhu K. Thakur, Sumer Singh Boparai, Ayush Puri, Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Shikhar Garg, Ashutosh Jain, Vinayak Bhandari, Sirhaan Seth, Shobh Nath Maurya, Rishabh Basra, Vishal Singh, Sultan Jafri, Sidhant Saraswat, Ayush Sachan, Vaibhav Kapur, Ms. Muskan Sharma & Varun Bhati, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Tarveen Singh Nanda, GP, Ms Hridyanshi Sharma, Pranjal Tripathi, Advs., Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel & Rakesh Kumar, IO for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner was the promoter of Amtek Group of Companies. Based on IDBI Bank’s complaint, the CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner and his company for fraud. The ED registered an ECIR against the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an instant petition challenging the validity of his arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA. It was noted that the assessment of the arresting officer that there was a necessity to arrest could not be faulted as there were substantial reasons encapsulated in grounds of arrest, which prima facie pointed to a large-scale diversion of public money through complex corporate transactions.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since at the stage of the arrest, it was evident that more investigation was required and there was a potential of tampering with evidence and dissuading persons who were associated with the company to give proper disclosures to prevent committing further offences in terms of further diversion of funds and dissipating, obscuring, and obfuscating money trail, the arrest of the petitioner was justified.
Thus, the petitioner’s arrest did not violate the provisions of Section 19, and the instant petition was to be dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 512 [Para 60]; followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 (para 21)
- Prem Prakash v. Union of India 2024 INSC 637 (para 21)
- Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 (para 21)
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 512 (para 21)
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 (para 21)
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State 2024 INSC 414 (para 21)
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 (para 21)
- V. Senthil Balaji v. State 2023 SCC OnLine SC 934 (para 21)
- K. Govindaraj v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3500 (para 21)
- State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 (para 22)
- H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1 SCR 1150 (para 22)
- State Bank of India v. Rajesh Aggarwal & Ors. (2023) 6 SCC 1 (para 22)
- Ram Narain Popli v. CBI AIR 2003 SC 2748 (para 22)
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 (para 22)
- Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 6 SCC 308 (para 22)
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 674 (para 31.1)
- Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14 SCC 171 (para 31.1)
- Ayya v. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 374 (para 31.8)
- Smt. Elsy George v. Union of India 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1157 (para 31.8)
- Madhu Garg v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 625 (para 31.8).
The post HC Upholds Petitioner’s Arrest by ED Citing Fraud Allegations, Need for Further Investigation, and Evidence Tampering Risk appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
