AI Insights
The case involves multiple respondents, including T. Venkattram Reddy, Parasaruman Karthik Iyer, and Mani Oommen, who were arrested by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for their alleged involvement in laundering proceeds from a bank fraud case involving M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (DCHL). The respondents challenged their arrests and the subsequent rejection of their remand by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The ED argued that the respondents were not cooperating with the investigation and had diverted funds, while the respondents contended that their arrests were illegal and not supported by justifiable material. The High Court's decision to set aside the remand rejection was based on the need for a thorough re-evaluation of the grounds for arrest and compliance with procedural safeguards under the law.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725559 (HC-TELANGANA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
08-09-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"t 3r681 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL REVIS|ON,CASE NO: 378 Of 2023 ALONG W|TH WRIT PETITION Nos.1 91 63 21448 & 20835 of 2023 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.509 of 2023 Criminal Revision Case No.378 ot 2023 Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 14-06-2023 passed in SR No.6506 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Ndmpally, Hyderabad. Between: Directorate of Enforcement, Represented by its Assistant Director Hyderabad Zon a r U n it, 3rd Froor, p_h..lb l- rn r::fu ,,p,i:T\"Ftt\",,r* \" r[lTXl:fr ::?r* AND 'l . T. Venkaftram Reddy, aged 64 Years, (Ex-Member of Parliament) S/o Late Shri T. Chandrasekhar Reddy, R/o PIot No.54, H.No.8-2-703lA-6-C, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. Sh. Parusaraman karthik lyer, aged 56 years, S/o Late Sh. T.V. Parasuraman, R/o House No.2, LIC Colony, Dr Radhakrishnan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. 3. Shri Mani Oommen,' .aged 63 years, S/o Shri Oommen VergheseKochumallipurathu, Rlo 2-2-647 1217, Central Excise Colony, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 0'13. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.R.L. SUNDARESHAN, Learned Additional Solicitor General of lndia representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. SRI ANIL PRASAD TlWARl, SC FOR ED Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI S' RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A' VENKATESH' Senior Counsel representing SRI V. SURENDER RAO Writ PetitionNo .19163 of 2023 Between: T. Venkattram Reddy,, S/o Late Shri T' Aqed about 64 Yeais, R/o Plot No. 54' Blnjara Hills, HYderabad. chandrasekhar Reddy, {)cc' Business' H. No. B-2-703IA-6-C, Road No. 12, AND ...Petitioner ..Respondents 1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary' North Block Central Secretar:iat, New Dqlhi.-1 10 004, Directorate of Enforcement' Pravartan Bhawan' APJ Abdul Kalirm Road' New Delhi -1 1O 011, Rep. by its Joint Director Deoutv Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of lnlia' Ministry.of ffi\"r;'J\":b6;ilr;;i;i R;r;\" *, 3rd Floor, Sh a kka r B hava n' Basheerbas h' Hyderabad. The Asst. Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement' Hyderabad Zonal otri#, 5iali\"\"i, shat
Other Referred Cases
V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, Sukesh Gupta v. Govt. of India, Directorate of Enforcement v. Kamma Srinivas Rao, P. Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate, Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, Dr. Pratap Singh v. ED, FERATo, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, Jai Shankar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Aslam Mohd. Merchant v. Competent Authority, A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, Siddarth v. State of UP, Mohammad Zubair v. State of NCT, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia
Laws Referred To
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Constitution of India
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
Letter of Indemnity - Registering as Representative Assessee for Deceased
Mehul₹0
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026