Shilpa Shetty-Raj Kundra challenge ED eviction notice in Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) why it issued an eviction notice to actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra. The bench—which included Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan—was hearing two petitions filed by the couple against the eviction notices. The properties under question include a flat in Juhu in Shetty's name, a bungalow in Pune, and equity shares owned by Kundra.
ED's investigation into money laundering allegations
The ED launched its probe after several FIRs were filed by the Maharashtra Police and Delhi Police against Variable Tech Pvt Ltd, the late Amit Bhardwaj, Ajay Bhardwaj, Vivek Bhardwaj, Simpy Bhardwaj, Mahender Bhardwaj, and other marketing agents. In April, the ED's Mumbai Zonal Office attached Shetty and Kundra's immovable and movable properties worth ₹97.79cr under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency has alleged that the accused were involved in Bitcoin farming.
ED accused of issuing a premature eviction notice
Representing Kundra, advocates Prashant Patil and Swapnil Ambure argued that the adjudicating authority had passed an order to attach the property and they had 45 days to approach the Appellate Tribunal in Delhi. However, they allege the agency issued an eviction notice before the period expired. "We have 45 days to challenge, but they have given notice for eviction within 10 days," advocate Patil said.
High court questioned ED's haste in eviction proceedings
In response, the High Court asked how the ED could conduct an eviction before the end of the 45-day statutory appeal period. "You can make a provisional attachment, but you must allow time for eviction after the statutory appeal is exhausted," Justice Dere said. Justice Chavan added, "Powers exist, but they must not be exercised arbitrarily. What is the urgency in issuing the eviction notice?" Meanwhile, the court has scheduled a hearing for Thursday.
Shetty and Kundra's petitions argue against eviction urgency
According to the petitions filed by Shetty and Kundra, there is no pressing urgency for them to leave their premises and the issuance of such eviction notices was unnecessary. The petitions also sought the High Court to stay the effect of the eviction notices. They argued that their residence has no connection to the scheduled offense or any proceeds of crime. The petitions also claimed that Kundra had no involvement in the alleged fraud.
