INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
return to India, dubbing him a "fugitive".A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta passed the direction after the company's lawyer
said relief should not be denied to it on a technicality that Firestar International had authorised the filing of petitions by its
subsidiary, Firestar Diamond
"If we should not stress upon technicality
Then ask Mr Modi to come back
Ask him to come back," the bench told advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for Firestar Diamond and Firestar International.Expressing
"serious concern" over Nirav Modi's statement to investigative agencies that he will not submit to their jurisdiction, the court said "we
are dealing with a fugitive here according to them (ED)
only non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and no order proclaiming him as an absconder has been passed.The Enforcement
Directorate (ED) has conducted searches and seizure of the company and its assets in connection with a money laundering case related to the
over Rs 11,000 crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.Mr Agarwal urged the bench to either stay the ED proceedings against the two
companies or direct the agency to provide the reasons for its search and seizure action.The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General
Sandeep Sethi and central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan, raised several objections, including that of jurisdiction, against
maintainability of the pleas.The agency contended that no relief should be granted to the two companies under the discretionary power of the
court as Nirav Modi was a "fugitive from justice", was "absconding" and not joining the investigation.It showed the share holding pattern of
the two companies and several others in which Nirav Modi has stake and argued that he was the person behind all of them.The court took note
of the share holding pattern and said it was "intricate" and "speaks for itself".The bench also said there was merit in ED's contention that
while the "driving force behind the companies" (Modi) was not submitting to the agency's jurisdiction, his companies cannot be given any
discretionary relief.The observations came during the hearing on the pleas of Modi's and Mehul Choksi's firms challenging the ED proceedings
against them as well as various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)
The court listed all the matters for hearing on May 3.It asked the ED to file its response to the pleas moved by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems and
Modi's Firestar International, the parent company of Firestar Diamonds which had earlier moved high court against the ED proceedings.During
the hearing, Mr Agarwal argued that the agency was making contradictory submissions
He said on one hand it was saying Nirav Modi was not separate from the two companies, on the other it was saying that the Board of Firestar
International cannot authorise filing of petitions by Firestar Diamond as they were different entities.The court, however, observed that in
view of the board resolution by Firestar International, the petitions of Firestar Diamond were bad from inception and added that the conduct
of Nirav Modi was also essential to consider grant of discretionary relief.With regard to the plea by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems, which has
challenged the alleged illegal seizure of documents and articles by the probe agency, the bench said its share holding too has to be seen to
ascertain who holds the controlling interest."The bottom line is that under Article 226 for grant of discretionary relief, we may want to
examine to whom the benefit will enure
We have to see who will be benefitted," the court said.The three companies in their respective pleas have sought directions to ED to supply
them copies of search warrants, the ECIR registered by the agency on the basis of which searches were made in their premises and the entire
documentation and details of places where the assets have been kept for safe keeping.They have also challenged the constitutionality of
various provisions of the PMLA, including Section 17 which gives powers of search and seizure and Section 20 relating to retention of
property.Billionaire Nirav Modi, his uncle Mehul Choksi and others are being investigated by multiple probe agencies after the scam recently
came to light following a complaint by the PNB that they had allegedly cheated the nationalised bank to the tune of Rs 11,400 crore, with
the purported involvement of a few employees of the bank.The ED has registered the money laundering case against Nirav Modi, his firms and
others on the basis of a CBI FIR.The CBI and the ED have registered FIRs to probe the case and intensified the crackdown on Nirav Modi and
Choksi with the ED seizing jewellery and assets worth thousands of crores of rupees, the I-T department attaching various properties, and
