look news india
Mumbai: Actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra have got interim relief from Bombay Court. The court had given him interim protection in a petition filed in the Bombay High Court against the ED notice directing him to vacate his farmhouse in Pune and his house in Juhu in a money laundering case. The above direction was given after the ED agreed that adequate notice is not being implemented at present.
Mrs. Revati Mohite Dhare and Ms. Prithviraj Chavan's bench upheld the couple's plea seeking stay on ED proceedings and made it clear that it would not take any action until the Delhi Appellate Authority decides on their appeal against the PMLA tribunal's September 18 order. Will go.
Apart from this, the court also said that even if an order is given against the couple, it will not be implemented for the next two weeks. In the money laundering case related to the alleged Bitcoin fraud, the ED had on September 27 directed Shetty and Kundra to vacate both the properties within ten days. He challenged this notice.
Shilpa's lawyer said that she received the notice on October 3. A demand was made to cancel the notice, terming it arbitrary and illegal. According to the petition, there is no hurry to vacate the house and such notice is unfair. The petitioners have also sought relief on humanitarian grounds as six of their family members have been living in the house mentioned in the notice for two decades. The petition also demanded a stay on the implementation of the notice.
According to the petition, the ED had filed a complaint against Amit Bhardwaj and others in 2018 for alleged Bitcoin fraud and money laundering. He has not even been made an accused in this case.
The petition states that the ED called Kundra for questioning several times and Kundra appeared every time.
In April 2024, Shetty and Kundra received a notice on the order passed by the ED asking Kundra's father to attach properties, including the Juhu residence, which he had purchased in 2009. Both responded to the notice. However, contrary to law, the authority had upheld the order dated September 18, 2024. The order clearly states that the trial will last only till the conclusion of the case and subject to its outcome. On October 3, the petitioners received two notices dated September 27, directing them to vacate both the properties. The petition states that no order or notice to vacate the property can be given before conviction.
