.jpg)
‘Take a date, what is the bail in ED case’
-A judge of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court commented
-After this the Chief Justice transferred the case to another judge
New Delhi. A judge of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has been accused of being biased towards the Enforcement Directorate (ED). After this, the Chief Justice had to transfer the case from that judge to someone else.
The case is related to Bhushan Steel money laundering case. The Chief District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court has transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another. In fact, the accused had alleged that the judge had a possible bias in favor of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Behind this he cited a comment of the judge. According to the accused, the judge hearing the case had reportedly commented that what is the bail in ED cases.
In an order passed on May 1, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna transferred the case from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar. The court ordered that the said case be withdrawn from the court of Jagdish Kumar. The case has been assigned to the court of Principal Special Judge Mukesh Kumar to decide and dispose of it as per law.
According to the Bar and Bench report, the petition to transfer the case was filed by one of the accused in the case, Ajay S. Mittal. The petition said that in view of the interest of justice, the proceedings should be transferred from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to some other court.
This was Mittal's case only. His bail plea was listed for hearing before Judge Jagdish Kumar on April 10, 2024. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare for the arguments and the case was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal's wife is also an accused in the case. She was also watching the proceedings. When the lawyers left the courtroom, the court staff interrogated the judge. During this, the judge commented, 'Give me a date, what is the bail in ED cases?' After this, the accused requested to take the case from him and hear it before another judge, which was accepted.
Fairness and equality are hallmarks of the criminal justice system.
While transferring the case to another judge, the court said, fairness and equality are the hallmarks of the criminal justice system. Judges have a responsibility to decide the cases before them while ensuring fairness, integrity and equality of treatment and in doing so judges uphold the rule of law.
Apprehension is not wrong: Principal District and Sessions Judge
The Principal District and Sessions Judge said that the apprehension expressed cannot be called wrong. “The case is still at an initial stage and there will be no prejudice to the respondent if the case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction,” he said. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. Therefore the applicant's application is accepted.
what is the matter
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in March had said that immovable assets worth Rs 367 crore have been attached in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and some cities of Odisha as part of its money laundering probe linked to the bank fraud case against Bhushan Steel Ltd. The ED said in a statement that a temporary order has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach properties held in the name of benamidars/shell companies through fake directors. Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) was acquired by Tata Steel Limited in 2018 after completing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The ED has also accused BSL, its managing director Neeraj Singal and associates of forming 'several shell companies'.
,
-A judge of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court commented
-After this the Chief Justice transferred the case to another judge
New Delhi. A judge of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has been accused of being biased towards the Enforcement Directorate (ED). After this, the Chief Justice had to transfer the case from that judge to someone else.
The case is related to Bhushan Steel money laundering case. The Chief District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court has transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another. In fact, the accused had alleged that the judge had a possible bias in favor of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Behind this he cited a comment of the judge. According to the accused, the judge hearing the case had reportedly commented that what is the bail in ED cases.
In an order passed on May 1, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna transferred the case from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar. The court ordered that the said case be withdrawn from the court of Jagdish Kumar. The case has been assigned to the court of Principal Special Judge Mukesh Kumar to decide and dispose of it as per law.
According to the Bar and Bench report, the petition to transfer the case was filed by one of the accused in the case, Ajay S. Mittal. The petition said that in view of the interest of justice, the proceedings should be transferred from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to some other court.
This was Mittal's case only. His bail plea was listed for hearing before Judge Jagdish Kumar on April 10, 2024. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare for the arguments and the case was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal's wife is also an accused in the case. She was also watching the proceedings. When the lawyers left the courtroom, the court staff interrogated the judge. During this, the judge commented, 'Give me a date, what is the bail in ED cases?' After this, the accused requested to take the case from him and hear it before another judge, which was accepted.
Fairness and equality are hallmarks of the criminal justice system.
While transferring the case to another judge, the court said, fairness and equality are the hallmarks of the criminal justice system. Judges have a responsibility to decide the cases before them while ensuring fairness, integrity and equality of treatment and in doing so judges uphold the rule of law.
Apprehension is not wrong: Principal District and Sessions Judge
The Principal District and Sessions Judge said that the apprehension expressed cannot be called wrong. “The case is still at an initial stage and there will be no prejudice to the respondent if the case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction,” he said. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. Therefore the applicant's application is accepted.
what is the matter
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in March had said that immovable assets worth Rs 367 crore have been attached in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and some cities of Odisha as part of its money laundering probe linked to the bank fraud case against Bhushan Steel Ltd. The ED said in a statement that a temporary order has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach properties held in the name of benamidars/shell companies through fake directors. Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) was acquired by Tata Steel Limited in 2018 after completing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The ED has also accused BSL, its managing director Neeraj Singal and associates of forming 'several shell companies'.
,
-After this the Chief Justice transferred the case to another judge
New Delhi. A judge of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has been accused of being biased towards the Enforcement Directorate (ED). After this, the Chief Justice had to transfer the case from that judge to someone else.
The case is related to Bhushan Steel money laundering case. The Chief District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court has transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another. In fact, the accused had alleged that the judge had a possible bias in favor of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Behind this he cited a comment of the judge. According to the accused, the judge hearing the case had reportedly commented that what is the bail in ED cases.
In an order passed on May 1, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna transferred the case from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar. The court ordered that the said case be withdrawn from the court of Jagdish Kumar. The case has been assigned to the court of Principal Special Judge Mukesh Kumar to decide and dispose of it as per law.
According to the Bar and Bench report, the petition to transfer the case was filed by one of the accused in the case, Ajay S. Mittal. The petition said that in view of the interest of justice, the proceedings should be transferred from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to some other court.
This was Mittal's case only. His bail plea was listed for hearing before Judge Jagdish Kumar on April 10, 2024. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare for the arguments and the case was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal's wife is also an accused in the case. She was also watching the proceedings. When the lawyers left the courtroom, the court staff interrogated the judge. During this, the judge commented, 'Give me a date, what is the bail in ED cases?' After this, the accused requested to take the case from him and hear it before another judge, which was accepted.
Fairness and equality are hallmarks of the criminal justice system.
While transferring the case to another judge, the court said, fairness and equality are the hallmarks of the criminal justice system. Judges have a responsibility to decide the cases before them while ensuring fairness, integrity and equality of treatment and in doing so judges uphold the rule of law.
Apprehension is not wrong: Principal District and Sessions Judge
The Principal District and Sessions Judge said that the apprehension expressed cannot be called wrong. “The case is still at an initial stage and there will be no prejudice to the respondent if the case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction,” he said. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. Therefore the applicant's application is accepted.
what is the matter
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in March had said that immovable assets worth Rs 367 crore have been attached in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and some cities of Odisha as part of its money laundering probe linked to the bank fraud case against Bhushan Steel Ltd. The ED said in a statement that a temporary order has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach properties held in the name of benamidars/shell companies through fake directors. Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) was acquired by Tata Steel Limited in 2018 after completing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The ED has also accused BSL, its managing director Neeraj Singal and associates of forming 'several shell companies'.
,
