HC refrains from staying attachment of Virbhadra's, wife's

The Delhi High Court today refrained from granting an interim stay on Enforcement Directorate's (ED) order to provisionally attach some of the assets of Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and his wife Pratibha Singh in a case of alleged money laundering.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked ED and Ministry of Finance to file their responses by May 27, the next date of hearing, after which the bench will take a decision on stay of ED's provisional attachment order.
"Let them (ED and Ministry) file their counter affidavit within 10 days. We will consider," the court said, adding that "we are issuing notice" to the authorities concerned.

The court's order came on a plea by Singh and his wife, who have sought stay on the March 23 provisional attachment order (PAO) of ED, besides quashing and setting aside of the same, on the ground that it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
They also sought quashing of the April 26 notice issued to them under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing the couple, said that the proceedings initiated are without jurisdiction and authority of law.

ED has attached assets worth Rs 5,79,84, 989 belonging to Pratibha Singh and Rs 1,34,64,609 of Virbhadra Singh, their joint petition said.

They urged the court to quash Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) of October 27, 2015, lodged purportedly under PMLA.
"There is no charge sheet in the present case against anyone," the plea has said, adding that the basis of passing PAO under PMLA are the Income Tax department's inquiries and investigation "which are under challenge and are not conclusive of any allegation" made against them.
(Reopen LGD37)
The chief minister and his wife have also challenged the recently-amended second proviso of section 5(1) of PMLA which provides that any property of any person may be attached if ED officer concerned has reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property allegedly involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act.

The petition has sought that this proviso of PMLA be declared unconstitutional, claiming it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution.
They have challenged PAO by saying "respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction by abusing the process of law and powers conferred to them by the statute passed by PAO dated March 23, 2016, attaching the properties of the petitioners".
They have also contended that their property could not be attached without giving them an opportunity to explain sources of property under attachment.
They contended that PAO was bad in law as the property under attachment was not bought using proceeds of crime.

The plea contended that the property cannot be attached under PMLA when the petitioners were not charged with committing any schedule offence under the Act and added that ED's action was "preemptive, presumptuous and arbitrary".