Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
A Special PMLA court in Gurgaon has declined applications filed by Arvind Walia, a jailed promoter and director of Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd, seeking permission to attend company meetings through video conferencing from prison. Walia is in judicial custody in connection with an alleged real estate fraud involving more than 2,000 homebuyers and around INR 1,100 crore. The court also rejected his plea seeking directions to the Enforcement Directorate for issuing a No Objection Certificate to facilitate licence extensions for company projects.
A Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act court in Gurgaon has rejected requests made by Arvind Walia, a promoter and director of Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd, to participate in company meetings and manage business affairs through online platforms while lodged in jail. Walia is currently in judicial custody following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to alleged cheating of over 2,000 homebuyers, with funds amounting to nearly INR 1,100 crore. Advertisement
Through his counsel, Walia had sought permission to attend board meetings and general body meetings of the company via video conferencing. He had also requested the court to allow him to execute company-related documents, stating that his involvement was required for operational continuity. In a separate plea, he asked the court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to issue a No Objection Certificate to enable the extension of licences for Ramprastha's real estate projects with the Haryana Town and Country Planning Department.
The court observed that judicial custody necessarily curtails personal liberty and professional engagement. It noted that allowing a person in custody to participate in corporate decision-making through digital means would dilute the purpose of incarceration and create an uneven legal position. The judge highlighted that the Companies Act already provides for alternative arrangements, including appointment of alternate directors or delegation of responsibilities, in cases where directors are unable to discharge their duties due to legal restrictions.
On the request for a No Objection Certificate, the court clarified that no document was placed on record to show that the Enforcement Directorate had directed statutory authorities to halt processing of the company's applications. It further stated that an investigation under the PMLA does not automatically prevent regulatory bodies from carrying out their statutory functions, and the court cannot compel the agency to issue directions beyond its legal scope. The applications were subsequently dismissed.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
