Jodhpur : The Rajasthan High Court Monday asked Robert Vadra and his partners in Skylight Hospitality Private Limited, including his mother Maureen Vadra to appear before the Enforcement Directorate on February 12 to respond to allegations of money laundering by the firm.
IN PUBLIC INTEREST
*Cover your face with masks to prevent transmission of droplets carrying coronavirus
*Exercise social distancing
*Wash your hands frequently
*Sanitize your hands
STAY HOME & STAY SAFE!
A Jodphur bench of the high court gave the direction after vacating its earlier order that prevented the agency from taking any coercive action against Vadra and others.
A bench of Justice P S Bhati, while asking Vadra and others to appear before the agency, however, refused to vacate the stay on their arrest and denied liberty to the ED to take them in custody.
Justice Bhati clarified that if the need arises, the ED will have to move the court separately to seek permission for arresting them.
Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General Rajdeep Rastogi told the bench that the agency has initiated an inquiry against the owners and partners of Skylight Hospitality Limited on a complaint of money laundering against the company.
The company moved the court against this inquiry and obtained an order that no coercive action would be taken against them during investigation, said Rastogi.
The ED then moved the court seeking vacation of this order on the ground that there was neither any FIR lodged in the matter nor there was any accused named.
It is just a fact-finding inquiry which is at an initial stage, so the court should not intervene in the matter at this stage, Rastogi argued in the court.
Admitting the additional solicitor general’s arguments, the court removed the No Coercive Action clause from its earlier order.
On the basis of a mutual consent of the lawyers from both sides, the bench also ordered firm’s owner and partners, including Vadra and his mother to appear before the ED and cooperate with it in the inquiry.
The court, however, refused to vacate other part of the order, which had stayed their arrest. It asked
Leave a Reply