Telangana HC notice to Naveen Mittal in evacuee property NOC case
In the second petition, Agarwal contested a decision of the trial court which had kept in abeyance the cognisance proceedings against Mittal and other public servants due to the pending sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The petitioner alleged that the NOCs were issued illegally to third parties in criminal collusion with other accused persons. She claimed that forged and fabricated documents were used and that the NOCs were issued with false recitals. She also alleged that objections raised by her were recorded without her being served any notice or given an opportunity to be heard. The NOC proceedings allegedly went so far as to declare the title and possession in favour of the applicants, effectively undermining her own claim to the property.
Agarwal asserted that the entire process was aimed at misclassifying the disputed land as 'non-evacuee' property, thereby nullifying her title which is based on GO No 388 dated December 20, 1954. This government order had declared the subject land as evacuee property, forming the basis of her claim.
The two writ petitions came up for hearing before separate Single Judge Benches — one headed by Justice K Lakshman and the other by Justice N Tukaramji. After hearing the submissions, both benches issued notices to Mittal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC stays ED proceedings against film producer, bizman
Chennai, The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings, pursuant to the Enforcement Directorate's authorisation to conduct search and seizure, against film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in the alleged ₹1,000 crore TASMAC money laundering case. A division bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay on the petitions filed by Baskaran and Vikram, challenging the action of the ED. Senior counsels Vijay Narayanan and Abudukumar submitted that the petitioners have no involvement with the TASMAC operations at all and in the alleged 41 FIRs lodged by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the scheduled offences, no independent allegation or predicate offence has been registered against the petitioners and therefore questioned the validity of the invocation of Section 17 of the PMLA. In its order, the bench said since the petitioners had totally denied any involvement relating to the scheduled offences, it had called upon the Special Public Prosecutor to produce before it the materials forming the basis of information in their possession, which has led them to believe that the petitioners had committed an act, which constitutes money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime, records or property, in a sealed cover, through an interim order dated June 13, 2025. On June 17, the SPP produced a sealed cover along with an undated and unsigned brief explanation note along with supporting materials, claiming it to be the information they possess about the petitioners, which led them to initiate the search operations, the bench added. The bench said the brief explanation note, however, also does not relate to the information or materials which the Directorate claims to have in possession in their earlier notes on "reason to believe" produced on June 17. Neither does this brief explanation note disclose any information in the possession of the Directorate, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operations in the petitioners premises, the bench added. The bench said when it indicated to Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that whatever the information/materials they had produced before it in the sealed cover had no nexus to their original claims of being in possession of incriminating information, he submitted that the 41 FIRs, relating to the scheduled offences registered against the TASMAC officials, were the information in their possession, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operation. "When we expressed to the Additional Solicitor General that we do not approve his claim in this regard, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that they had already directed the respondent to de-seal the petitioner's premises . His statement is hereby recorded. The Additional Solicitor General sought four weeks time to file a counter affidavit before us," the bench added. The bench said, "On a prima facie view, we find that the Authorisation No.96/2025, dated May 15,2025 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's premises by the respondent, is wholly without authority or jurisdiction, since no incriminating information or material was in their possession on May 15, 2025 when the respondent had authorised for search and seizure operations and on May 16, 2025 when the respondent had sealed the petitioner's premises". The bench said it consciously refrained from describing the alleged material or information claimed to be in the possession of the ED for obvious reasons. However, it would suffice to state that the so-called information produced by the Directorate before it has absolutely no semblance of an information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering. "In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the respondent's Authorization No.96/2025 dated May, 15,.2025, pending disposal of this Writ Petition", the bench added. The bench said there shall be a further interim order to the ED to return all the seized properties of the petitioners, pursuant to the search and seizure operations conducted on May 16, pending final disposal of this Writ Petition. The petitioners shall not tamper or alienate the digital devices that has been returned to him/to be returned to him, pending final disposal of this writ petition. The bench posted to July 16, for further hearing of the case.
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC notice to Naveen Mittal in evacuee property NOC case
In the second petition, Agarwal contested a decision of the trial court which had kept in abeyance the cognisance proceedings against Mittal and other public servants due to the pending sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the NOCs were issued illegally to third parties in criminal collusion with other accused persons. She claimed that forged and fabricated documents were used and that the NOCs were issued with false recitals. She also alleged that objections raised by her were recorded without her being served any notice or given an opportunity to be heard. The NOC proceedings allegedly went so far as to declare the title and possession in favour of the applicants, effectively undermining her own claim to the property. Agarwal asserted that the entire process was aimed at misclassifying the disputed land as 'non-evacuee' property, thereby nullifying her title which is based on GO No 388 dated December 20, 1954. This government order had declared the subject land as evacuee property, forming the basis of her claim. The two writ petitions came up for hearing before separate Single Judge Benches — one headed by Justice K Lakshman and the other by Justice N Tukaramji. After hearing the submissions, both benches issued notices to Mittal.
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Ex-municipality chairman among five held for extortion of money from truckers
JHARSUGUDA: Lakhanpur police on Wednesday night arrested five persons including former chairman of Brajrajnagar municipality Kishor Agarwal for allegedly extorting money from truck drivers loading coal at Lakhanpur opencast mines. Apart from prime accused Agarwal (65) of Lamtibahal, his associates Stifen Paramanik, Amarendar Singh, Sujit Kerketta and Sashi Dhar Chouhan were arrested under sections 296, 308 (6), and 61 (2) of BNS. The arrests were made on basis of a complaint filed by one Sunny Ram (36), a truck driver of Simdega in Jharkhand, alleging coercion and threats by the accused. Ram filed the complaint on June 18 alleging that the accused demanded Rs 145 per truckload to affix a seal on loading slips, essential for issuing challans. The driver claimed he was transporting coal in his truck when Singh and two of his associates approached him and demanded money. When he refused, they reportedly manhandled him and threatened him with dire consequences. The accused also warned that his truck would be blacklisted if he did not pay. Ram further said the three accused claimed to be operating under Agarwal's instructions and boasted of high-profile connections. Fearing retribution, the driver paid the amount, and a seal marked 'LSS' was placed on his loading slip. Brajrajnagar SDPO Chintamani Pradhan said basing on the complaint, police registered a case and started investigation. Subsequently, the five accused were arrested and produced in court. Sources said around 400 to 500 trucks, each carrying 17 to 18 tonne of coal, are dispatched daily from Lakhanpur opencast mines to various industries like Vedanta, JSW, BPSL and Hindalco. Agarwal, who owns IB Valley transport, allegedly collected Rs 5 per tonne of coal from transporters. He had secured a tender of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) at 99 per cent discount to load 400–500 trucks daily at Lakhanpur mines using his payloaders. The illegal collection of money was going on for years. Contacted, general manager of Lakhanpur Area AK Pandey said they support coal dispatch by rail and oppose transport by trucks. Steps are being taken to stop illegal collection from truck drivers, he added.
