|
Delhi's Rouse Avenue court has issued a notice to Special Director of Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) to appear before the court after it took a serious view of the conduct of the counsel for DoE.
The Special Director has been asked to specify the stand in relation to seeking adjournment without showing extreme necessity by its counsel. The court has issued notice while dealing an application seeking release of case property where the case has been already quashed by the Supreme Court in March, 2024. Special CBI Judge Jitendra Singh on Saturday issued notice to the Special Director to appear on November 25. The court issued notice after taking a serious view of the conduct of counsel for DoE in seeking adjournment. "As the Counsel for the DoE has failed to specify the reason for seeking adjournment and has simply stated that he has been asked by the higher-ups to do so, I am constrained to issue notice to worthy Special Director to appear and specify the stand of DoE with regard to the present application and to verify as to whether its counsel has been acting and conducting the case as per their instruction," Special Judge said in the order date November 23. The court also said, "The response of worthy Special Director is further necessitated to initiate appropriate action for upholding the dignity of the court." The court issued notice to Special Director while dealing with an application of Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah in a money laundering case. It was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the ECIR qua the applicant has already been quashed by the Supreme Court by the order of March 5. Therefore, it is the duty of the Department of DoE to release the articles mentioned in the application. The court said that the fact regarding the quashing of the ECIR has not been disputed by the counsel for DoE. However, he submitted that he has been instructed to state that the time of 15 days may be granted for filing reply to the present application. At this stage, it was submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that DoE is deliberately not releasing the articles just to harass the applicant though the matter that has already been quashed by the Supreme Court. The Court asked the counsel that why the time is being sought, though the notice on the present application was issued on November 12 to which the counsel submitted that he has specific instructions from higher-ups to seek adjournment for 15 days. "The question was put to the learned Counsel to inform the Court regarding the extreme necessity for seeking adjournment to which learned Counsel in a very offensive and derogatory manner with loud tone audible to the Counsels present in the Court room submits 'Court ko jaisa lage waisa kar le'," the court noted. "This Court wonders why learned Counsel got so agitated on putting of a simple query," special judge noted in the order. The court also mentioned that another counsel also behaved in such manner in another case also. "This is not a solitary instance where the counsels for DoE have behaved in such a manner. In the case titled as 'Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Amrendra Dhari Singh and Ors.', the Counsel appearing for DoE had made a false submission regarding the supply of list of un-relied documents for which the court was constrained to summon and verify the said fact from the IO," the court said. The court said in the order that the learned Counsel as well as the DoE is well conversant of the fact that the parties seeking adjournment for more than seven days have to show extreme necessity. The court said that there is a mandate of the High Court of Delhi issued on December 21, 2023, in case titled as 'Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India and Ors. whereby it is directed that the designated Court shall list cases at least once a week and no adjournment shall be granted unless extremely necessary. (ANI)
|
