New Delhi [India], November 24 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday views that the period of lockdown will not affect the time period for expiry for a provisional attachment order while staying the provisional attachment order in the Rs 2240 crore bank fraud case involving Surya Vinayak Industries.
The Court further posted the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority till the next date of hearing on December 24.
Justice Navin Chawla's directions come during the hearing of two petitions filed by Nidhi Jain and Mohan Gupta seeking to set aside the provisional attachment order issued by ED. The matter relates to Rs 2240 crore bank fraud case involving Surya Vinayak Industries.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Ashul Agarwal. It was argued that the court would never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity. "Vigilantibus non-dormientibus jura subveniunt" which means law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent. It was argued that lapse of time is a species forfeiture of a right.
Advocate Aggarwal argued that the Constitutional Right of the Petitioners under Article 300A has been infringed and the provisional attachment order and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom as the Adjudicating Authority are liable to be set aside as the provisional attachment order has not been confirmed even after expiry of 180 days and after the expiry of 180 days, the Adjudicating Authority has become functus officio.
Lawyers for petitioners further argued that Sub-section (3) of Section 5 to the Act provides that every Provisional Attachment Order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days or on the date of the order made under sub-section (3) of Section 8, "whichever is earlier".
Therefore, one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, is the outer limit of the validity/life of such order and the same ceases to remain in effect, by efflux of time, beyond that date, in case no order confirming the Provisional Attachment Order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act prior thereto. (ANI)