HC refuses to stay attachment proceedings agst Virbhadra, wife

Delhi High Court today refused to stay the ED's attachment proceedings against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and his wife, but said the final order of the adjudicating authority would not be given effect to while their pleas challenging provisional attachment are pending.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath passed the order on Virbhadra and his wife Pratibha Singh's application seeking stay on the provisional attachment order (PAO) of March 23 and the proceedings against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The bench, which disposed of their application, however, said that any final order passed by the adjudicating authority in the attachment proceedings would not be given effect to till their petitions challenging the PAO and the proceedings are finally decided.

The court listed their petitions along with that of Virbhadra's son and daughter, who have also challenged the provisional attachment of some of their assets.
The high court had stayed further proceedings against Virbhadra's son and daughter, but refused to pass the same order with regard to the Himachal Pradesh CM and his wife.
It said it was "unable to agree" with the contention of the couple that a similar order ought to be passed in their case also, as Virbhadra's son and daughter were not named in the FIR lodged under PMLA.

The bench on May 27 had said it would pass order today on the couple's application for interim relief.

Singh and his wife have sought stay on the March 23 PAO of ED, besides quashing and setting aside of the same, on the ground that it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
They have also sought quashing of the April 26 notice issued to them under PMLA.
ED has attached assets worth nearly Rs 5.80 crore belonging to Pratibha Singh and Rs 1.34 crore of Virbhadra Singh, their joint petition said.
On November 5 last year, the apex court had transferred
Singh's plea from Himachal Pradesh HC to Delhi HC, saying it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but "simply" transferring the petition "in interest of justice and to save the institution (judiciary) from any embarrassment".

CBI had moved the apex court seeking transfer of the case from the Himachal Pradesh HC to Delhi High Court and setting aside the interim order granting protection from arrest and other relief granted to Singh.
Singh had filed a petition in Himachal Pradesh HC pleading that searches on his private residence and other premises were conducted with "malafide intentions and political vendetta" by the CBI.
Singh had sought directions from high court to quash CBI's FIR lodged in Delhi against him and others under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 (punishment for abetment) of IPC.