Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra challenge ED’s eviction notices for Juhu, Pune properties in Bitcoin case
The accused in the ED case allegedly collected nearly Rs 6,600 crore in Bitcoins from people with false promises of a 10% monthly return in the cryptocurrency.
2 min read
Actor Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, have also sought a stay on the execution of the notices dated September 27 pending a hearing on their petitions. (Express Photo)Actor Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, have approached the Bombay High Court challenging eviction notices issued to them after their residential premises in the city’s Juhu area and a farmhouse near the Pawna dam in Pune district were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate.
They have also sought a stay on the execution of the notices dated September 27 pending a hearing on their petitions.
The central agency provisionally attached immovable and movable properties worth nearly Rs 90 crore belonging to Kundra in April this year under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in connection with the Bitcoin investment fraud case, in which the accused allegedly collected nearly Rs 6,600 crore in the form of Bitcoins in 2017 from people with false promises of a 10 per cent monthly return in the cryptocurrency.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan on Wednesday issued notices to the respondent authorities regarding the two pleas filed by the couple, seeking their response during the hearing on Thursday.
The ED issued notices related to the money-laundering case against Kundra based on multiple FIRs registered by the Maharashtra police and Delhi Police against Variable Tech Pvt Ltd, (late) Amit Bhardwaj, Ajay Bhardwaj, Vivek Bhardwaj, Simpy Bhardwaj, Mahender Bhardwaj, and several multilevel marketing agents.
The petitioners described as “completely uncalled for” the ED notice asking them to vacate their residential premises within 10 days. They stated that they had taken steps to appeal against the confirmation order of provisional attachment dated April 27. They argued that asking them to vacate the premises without the disposal of the appeal would be a “travesty of justice” and that there was no urgency for vacating the property.
Advocate Prashant Patil, representing the petitioners, sought protection for the petitioners and their family from the directions issued by the ED and requested that the agency’s actions be quashed and set aside.
You May Like
Top Stories
