Partly allowed

Sanjay Rishi v. UOI & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Aug 2018W.P.(C)/5183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought modification of an order prohibiting sale of two properties by furnishing a bank guarantee. The Court modified the order allowing sale of specified properties while restricting disposal of another property without permission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to sell two specified properties; restriction clarified to prevent sale of a third property without permission.

Sanjay Rishi Vs UOI & Ors. — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5183/2018

¶4

SANJAY RISHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Sidharth Agarwal, Mr Mohit Bakshi, Mr Kumar Kislay and Ms Krishna Datta Multani, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Anupam S. Sharma, SPP for CBI with Ms Apporva Ahuja and Mr Prakash Airan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 22.05.2019

¶5

CM APPL. 24846/2019

¶6

Issue notice.

¶7

The learned counsel appearing for respondents accepts notice.

¶8

This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, seeking modification of the order dated 03.08.2018, with regard to the condition that the petitioner would not sell his immovable properties. The petitioner states that he is the owner of two immovable properties: (i) 812, The Aralias, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase V, Gurgaon and (ii) Unit No. 23 SCO Market Place 1 Sector 83 Vatika India Next 1, Gurgaon. He states that the aforesaid properties are required to be sold in order to repay the loan taken from ICICI Bank, in respect of another property bearing No. 519-B,

¶9

The Camellias, Golf Course Road, Phase V, Gurgaon.

¶10

In addition, the petitioner would also require to furnish the said property, as it is stated that the same is provided by the developer in a bare shell condition.

¶11

It is seen that the petitioner has furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹1 Crore as required in terms of the order dated 03.08.2018. It is also stated that the petitioner had travelled overseas on four occasions thereafter. There is also no allegation that the petitioner is not coordinating with the investigation. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in fact, after the said order, the petitioner has not been called for any investigation by the authorities.

¶12

It is also asserted by the petitioner that the LOC which was subject matter of challenge has since expired. LOCs issued against two others similarly placed persons have also expired and same have not been renewed.

¶13

Keeping the aforesaid in mind, the order dated 03.08.2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is at liberty to sell the two properties – 812, The Aralias, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase V, Gurgaon and Unit No. 23 SCO Market Place 1 Sector 83 Vatika India Next 1, Gurgaon – and utilise the proceeds as indicated in the impugned order. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not sell the property bearing No. 519-B, The Camellias, Golf Course Road, Phase V, Gurgaon, without permission from the Court.

¶14

Insofar as the prayer for a complete recall of the order is concerned, this Court does not consider it apposite to grant the same at this stage.

¶15

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply afresh, if a fresh request for a LOC is issued.

¶16

The application is disposed of.

¶17

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶18

MAY 22, 2019 RK

Sanjay Rishi v. UOI & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rishi v. UOI & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow Vs Commissioner of Income Tax,New Delhi and Ors.

Sahara India Firm Lucknow Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Sahar India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Kolkatta Vs Cit I New Delhi and Ors.

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Kolkatta Vs Cit I New Delhi and Ors.

Eih Ltd. Vs Lt. Govermrnor of Delhi and Anr.

Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi and Anr.

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Private Limited and Anr. Vs Lt Governor of Delhi and Anr.

Jaypee Vasant Continental Vs Lidutenant Governor of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Jainjee P. Ltd. Vs Mahesh Chand Jain & Ors.

Xtraa Cleancities Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Airline Alllied Services Ltd. Vs John Arthur Anin

Mr. Inderjit Singh Paintal Vs State & Ors.

Sh. Pratap Kewal Singh Moorjani Vs State C+

Sainik Welfare Org - India Vs Nehra Infrastructures & Ors.