News Columns Interviews Law Firms Apprentice Lawyer Legal Jobs

News

Privacy of every individual must be protected:

Gujarat High Court on IT raids against
advocate
A bench led by Justice Bhargav Karia on Monday slammed IT officers for
raiding the house of petitioner-advocate's female associate in the early
morning hours and seizing her devices.
Gujarat High Court

Narsi Benwal

Published on: 19 Dec 2023, 10:25 am 3 min read

The privacy of an individual needs to be protected by investigating

agencies while enquiring about any case against him or her, the Gujarat
High Court said on Monday [Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income
Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad].

A division bench of Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta made the
observation while dealing with a plea challenging income tax (IT) raids
on a lawyer.

On Monday, the Court questioned the legal basis on which the Income
Tax officers of the Ahmedabad Unit raided the house of the petitioner-
advocate's associate, a female lawyer, in early morning hours.

"How can you visit a lady advocate's house early morning and seize her
and her family members' devices. Isn't this violating her privacy? You
will have to clarify as to how and under what law could you raid her
house like this," Justice Karia observed.

The plea before the Court was filed by advocate Maulikkumar Sheth
who highlighted the allegedly high-handed conduct of IT officers who
raided his home and office premises on November 3 and continued the
same till November 7.

During this time, the officers did not let Sheth or his family members
step out of their house, the Court was told. It was also submitted that
advocate Seth's premises were raided in connection with a document
concerning one of his clients.
The Court had earlier slammed the income tax officers for their alleged
conduct and demanded an explanation.

Also Read

We are not in a state of Emergency to do what you want: Gujarat

High Court slams IT raids on lawyer's office

Yesterday, the bench noted that the officers in their affidavit had failed
to properly explain their "raids" and the decision to seize documents
from Sheth's possession, which pertained to his clients.

"There is not a single line to deal with the contentions and pleadings
made in the petition. Only a merry-go-round explanation. You are only
running around the bushes. We want to know, how can you stop people
from going out of their house? This is unheard of. Why it took four days
of search?" Justice Karia questioned the officers who were represented
through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkatraman.

To this, the ASG responded that the raids were meaningful and that
impeccable information was seized from the petitioner advocate.

"But how could you even touch the document related to some other
client (whom you are assessing)? You need to understand that privacy
of any individual needs to be protected by any agency, at any cost," the
Court underscored.

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for
Sheth argued that the fundamental rights of his clients to carry out
their profession and to move freely were blatantly violated by the
officers.

"We were not allowed to step out for four days. This amounts to
detention. They violated my right to profession, right to liberty. Mine
and my family members' privacy was invaded in the manner in which
they have conducted the raids. Impounding of devices have breached
my rights under Article 19(1)(a)," Rohatgi argued for Sheth.

Rohatgi pointed out that the raids commenced in the early morning of
November 3 and ended on November 7, late in the evening.

"My daughter wasn't allowed to go to her college. But in affidavit they

claim that she never requested to go to college. Under what authority
can they ask us to make requests? I can say that I was in their custody
as my free movement was allowed only within my house as if it was a
house arrest," Rohatgi submitted.

Further, Rohatgi pointed out that the officers took away hundreds of
documents that were not related to the client in question but to
hundred other clients.

These documents, the senior counsel added, included agreements and

other legal documents drafted by Sheth for his clients.

He further argued that the officers had gone overboard in their search
for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to a client's sale of
a property.

"For this document, they even raided one of my associate's house early
morning. They seized her device and even that of her family members'
and later took her to my office and asked her to help search the
documents. Isn't this violating rights of people? Isn't this preventive
detention," Rohatgi argued.

Another senior advocate, also appearing for Sheth, argued that the raid
itself was illegal and that the material seized during these raids could
not be used. He, therefore, urged the bench to declare the raids illegal.

The bench will continue hearing the case on December 19.

Right to Privacy Gujarat High Court Income Tax Department

Right to liberty Justice Niral Mehta IT Raids

Justice Bhargav Karia

News

Videocon loan case: Chanda Kochhar moves

Bombay High Court challenging ICICI bank's
sanction to prosecute
A division bench has granted time to CBI to file a response to the petition
and posted the matter for hearing on January 5, 2024.
Chanda Kochhar, CBI and Bombay Hgih Court

Neha Joshi

Published on: 19 Dec 2023, 2:42 pm 2 min read

Former Managing Director (MD) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of

ICICI Bank, Chanda Kochhar has moved the Bombay High Court
challenging the sanction granted by the bank's Board to prosecute her
in the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan case.

The petition filed through Rashmikant & Partners contended that the
bank did not follow proper procedure while granting the sanction.

Advocate Kuldeep Patil, the counsel for the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI), sought time to file a reply to the petition.

Accordingly, a division bench of Justices PD Naik and NR Borkar

granted time to file a reply and posted the matter for hearing on
January 5, 2024.
In her petition, Kochhar noted that the ICICI Bank board had adopted a
resolution on April 22, 2023, to grant sanction to prosecute her. This
was informed by the CBI to a special court in June 2023.

Kochhar’s lawyer alleged that the bank did not follow proper procedure
to grant this sanction and that the bank had not suffered any loss.

₹
The case concerns the grant of a 3,250 crore loan given by ICICI to
the Videocon Group in 2012 when the bank was helmed by Kochhar.
The CBI has alleged that there was cheating and irregularities involved
in the grant of this loan.

As per the CBI, Kochhar had cleared the loan to the Videocon Group of
companies because her husband and family stood to benefit from such
dealings.

As quid pro quo, her husband's company Nu Renewable allegedly

received investment from Videocon.

The loan later turned into a non-performing asset (NPA) and was
termed as bank fraud.

Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar were arrested by the CBI in
the case in December 2022.

On January 9, the High Court ordered Kochhar and her

husband's release on interim bail, holding that their arrest did not
satisfy the provisions of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC).

The CBI filed a chargesheet against them in July 2023.

Bombay High Court Chanda Kochhar ICICI Bank Videocon

News

Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses

compassionate appointment to man whose
father died during Operation Blue Star in 1984
Compassionate appointments aim to help the dependents of deceased
government servants face immediate financial difficulties which cannot
be said to exist today after over 20 years, the Court said.
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Mohsin Dar

Published on: 19 Dec 2023, 1:52 pm 2 min read

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a man's plea for
employment on compassionate grounds in view of his father's death
during the 1984 Operation Bluestar [Bal Amrit Singh V/S Union of
India]

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed that compassionate

appointments are given to the dependents of the deceased government
servant only to help the family come out of the immediate financial
difficulties caused by the death of the government servant.

The Court opined that no such immediate financial difficulty existed for
the petitioner-son, over twenty years after the death of his father in
Operation Blue Star.
"The petitioner had attained the majority in the year 1998 and the
further 12 years passed by when his case was rejected. As on today,
more than another 12-13 years have been passed by. In these
circumstances, without examining the issue whether the appointment
was available to the families who died during the operation Blue Star,
this Court finds that by efflux of time after almost more than 20 years,
compassionate appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner," the
Court concluded.

The Court was hearing a plea by one Bal Amrit Singh, who sought a
compassionate appointment by way of a petition filed in 2013 on
account of the death of his father during the Operation Blue Star
conducted at the Golden Temple, Amritsar in 1984.

The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petitioner was a minor at
that time of his father's death.

The petitioner had sought to avail a compassionate appointment based

on a circular issued by the government granting such appointments to
the dependent family members of the persons killed due to terrorism
or riots.

The plea was dismissed by the High Court on December 8.

"Although it (compassionate appointment) is not a regular mode of

appointment but the same is given to the dependent of the deceased
Government servant only to come out from the immediate financial
difficulties which cannot be said to be existing as on today in relation
to the petitioner," the Court explained.

Advocate Naresh Jain appeared for the petitioner. Senior panel counsel
Ashish Chaudhary represented the Government of India whereas
Additional Advocate General Charanpreet Singh represented the Punjab
government.

Advocates MS Virk, and Dr. PK Sekhon appeared for other respondents.

[Read Order]

Attachment

PDF Bal Amrit Singh.pdf

Preview

Punjab and Haryana High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court

Compassionate Appointment Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Operation Blue Star

News

Madras High Court sets aside acquittal of TN

Minister K Ponmudi, wife in DA case
Justice G Jayachandran set aside a 2016 order acquitting K Ponmudi in a
case of disproportionate assets. Ponmudi is also the subject of suo motu
revision proceedings initiated by the Court in another DA case.
TN minister K Ponmudi, Madras High Court

Ayesha Arvind

Published on: 19 Dec 2023, 1:33 pm 1 min read

The Madras High Court Tuesday set aside a trial court order that
acquitted DMK minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate
assets case registered against the couple by the Tamil Nadu Directorate
of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).

Justice G Jayachandran set aside the 2016 order, thus, convicting

Ponmudi and his wife P Visalatchi.

Justice Jayachandran also directed Ponmudi and his wife to appear

before the court either physically, or using the video conferencing
mode on December 21, to decide on the quantum of sentence to be
imposed on the couple.
In April 2016, T Sundaramoorthy, Special Judge for cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, had acquitted Ponmudi and Visalatchi
saying that the prosecution that had claimed that the couple possessed
₹
wealth and assets worth 1.75 crore in excess of their known sources of
income, had failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

DVAC, the prosecution in the case, had filed an appeal challenging such
order and the DVAC's appeal was upheld by the High Court.

Ponmudi and his wife are also the subjects in a suo motu revision case
initiated by the High Court earlier this year questioning the couple's
acquittal in another case of disproportionate assets in June this year by
now retired principal district judge N Vasanthaleela.

Madras High Court Justice G Jayachandran K Ponmudi

Suo Motu Revision

News ⌄
Interviews ⌄

Columns ⌄
Others ⌄

Law Firms ⌄

Follow Us

Subscribe

Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Careers | Advertise with us |

About us

Copyright © 2021 Bar and Bench. All Rights Reserved

Powered by Quintype