Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Raghav Bahl In Money Laundering Case
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday agreed to grant interim protection to media baron Raghav Bahl in relation to money laundering case filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate.The Bench issued notice and directed no coercive steps to be taken against Bahl (interim direction).A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing special leave...
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday agreed to grant interim protection to media baron Raghav Bahl in relation to money laundering case filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate.
The Bench issued notice and directed no coercive steps to be taken against Bahl (interim direction).
A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing special leave petition filed by Bahl against Delhi High Court's order refusing to pass any order of interim protection in his petition seeking quashing of money laundering case against him.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Bahl submitted that in the present case he has already filed his income tax returns and the High Court has not granted him protection.
The High Court through its impugned order had granted three weeks to the ED to file its response to the petition filed by Bahl which also challenges the three notices issued to Bahl by the investigating officer.
A Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra had however refused to consider the oral request of Bahl's Counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi seeking no coercive action against him in the meanwhile.
The ED case against Bahl arises from a complaint by the Income Tax Department and relates to the alleged laundering of funds to purchase an undisclosed asset in London.
Before the High Court, Bahl had placed reliance on an assessment order dated 30.09.2021 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, stating that the return submitted by him has been accepted and credit of prepaid taxes, if any, had been directed to be given.
The petitioner had argued that in as much as the predicate offence does not exist, the proceedings in relation to the investigation being conducted by the Enforcement of Directorate cannot continue.
Case Title: Raghav Bahl vs Enforcement Directorate
Click Here To Read/Download Order