The adjudicating authority, set up under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), on Thursday gave disgraced Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju two more weeks to respond to the complaint filed by the enforcement directorate (ED).
ED had filed a complaint with the adjudicating authority in September this year seeking the confirmation of its provisional attachment order against 280 of Raju?s properties after it established that these were obtained through the ill-gotten gains from siphoning funds from Satyam Computer Services. Ramalinga Raju and his brother B Ramaraju, currently in police custody, were not represented in the court by any lawyer. But they had sent a communication to the adjudicating authority requesting for adjournment in the matter.
Although the 280-odd properties attached by the ED through a provisional order on August 18 are worth Rs 200 crore on paper, but their current market value is estimated to be about Rs 1,200 crore. The New Delhi-based adjudicating authority had issued notices to the 132 accused, granting time till November 5 to respond with justifications for the transactions under the scanner.
ED?s lawyer Rajeev Awasthi vehemently opposed the two week adjournment stating it was a deliberate attempt by the defendants to delay the proceedings. Awasthi pointed out that PMLA provides for a timeline of 150 days from the date of provisional attachment orders, of which 30 days have already passed.
The lawyers appearing for 130 other defendants sought adjournment on the grounds that a large number of representations will be filed on behalf of 132 defendants and more time is needed to organise a list and file their respective representations. ?A number of vakalatnamas have come from Hyderabad. I have been given the vakalatnamas but there needs to be a list. We are seeking adjournment so we can effectively serve the purpose of the court,? said RK Handu advocate speaking on behalf of all the defendants.The bench comprising chairman PK Misra and SK Sharma while granting two weeks time to the defendants asked them to file their replies along with the representations on the next date of hearing.