Punjab National Bank Reached Court In The Case Of Nirav Modi

Punjab National Bank reached the court in the case of Nirav Modi’s confiscated properties, raised this demand.

Punjab National Bank on Wednesday filed a series of applications in special court hearing cases related to PMLA.

PNB is seeking an order to bring back the seized properties of two companies of fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi.

The court has asked the ED to file its reply in the matter on July 28.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached assets worth over Rs 329.66 crore of Nirav Modi under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

These include the assets of Nirav-owned company Firestar Diamond International Private Limited and Firestar International Limited.

Nirav Modi and his relative Mehul Choksi are the main accused along with others in the case. The ED is probing the allegations of money laundering. The case pertains to a bank fraud of over Rs 14,000 crore.

This was done in connivance with the bank officials of PNB’s Brady House branch in Mumbai and wrongfully issued a letter of undertaking.

Nirav Modi (49) was declared an economic fugitive by the PMLA court in December 2019.

The court then allowed the ED to confiscate the property under the legal provisions. He is currently lodged in a UK prison after being arrested in London in March 2019. Efforts are on to bring him to India.

Recently, Nirav Modi has filed a new petition in the High Court of London against the extradition to India.

Nirav is to be tried in India on charges of money laundering and fraud in connection with the $2 billion scams involving PNB.

In the hearing, the judges of the High Court will determine whether there is any ground to petition against the decision of the Home Minister.

The Supreme Court canceled the provision to fix the tenure of the members of the Tribunal for four years.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, with a 2:1 majority, struck down the provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021.

This fixed the tenure of members of various tribunals for four years. However, the court has not upheld the ordinance.