M/s ALANKAR ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PMLA)
WPC/2883/2019 · 2025-03-18
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31486 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31486 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:12873
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2883 of 2019
1. M/s Alankar Alloys Private Limited, 402/03/04, 4th Floor, Harshit Corporate, Near Ravishankar University, Amanaka, Raipur Chhattigarh, Through Its Director Shri Akash Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Lalit Agrawal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o H. No. A - 14 / 10, Sector 3, Udya Society, Tatibandh Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
2. Shri Akash Kumar Agrawal, Director Of M/s Alankar Alloys Private Limited, S/o Shri Lalit Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o H. No. A - 14/10, Sector 3, Udya Society, Tatibandh Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
... Petitioners Versus • Assistant Director (PMLA) Enforcement Directorate, Government Of India, Sub - Zonal Office At 2nd Floor, A - 1 Block, Pujari Chambers, New Dhamtari Road, Pachpedinaka, Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
... Respondent For Petitioners : None, even in two round For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/03/2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order / direction. 10.1.1 To quash and set aside the Impugned Summons bearing no. F. No. ECIR/RPSZO/01/2013/575 dated 08.07.2019 issued to the Petitioners (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI
2
2. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey appeared in first round stated that the petition has been filed against the issuance of notice under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He would contend that the trial has already been commenced and thus, the petition has become infructuous.
3. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners even in two round, the trial has already commenced, therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to revive their prayer if cause of action still survives. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge vatti