During the searches, the officials seized property documents, investment details, mobile phones, and bank account details of companies, among other materials.
Subsequently, the central agency issued notices to Periyasamy and his family members seeking their explanation regarding the proposed attachment of properties.
Challenging these notices as well as the ED investigation, Periyasamy and his family members filed petitions before the Madras High Court.
When the petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G Arul Murugan, the petitioners’ advocate, senior counsel John Sathyan, argued that since the Supreme Court has stayed the trial in the disproportionate assets case against Periyasamy, the ED investigation should also be stayed.
He further submitted that after the filing of the petition, the agency had issued a summons directing the Minister to appear for inquiry on Thursday. The advocate representing the central agency sought time to file a reply to the petitions.
After hearing both sides, the bench directed the Enforcement Directorate to file its counter affidavit by January 5 and adjourned the hearing.
During the searches, the officials seized property documents, investment details, mobile phones, and bank account details of companies, among other materials.
Subsequently, the central agency issued notices to Periyasamy and his family members seeking their explanation regarding the proposed attachment of properties.
Challenging these notices as well as the ED investigation, Periyasamy and his family members filed petitions before the Madras High Court.
When the petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G Arul Murugan, the petitioners’ advocate, senior counsel John Sathyan, argued that since the Supreme Court has stayed the trial in the disproportionate assets case against Periyasamy, the ED investigation should also be stayed.
He further submitted that after the filing of the petition, the agency had issued a summons directing the Minister to appear for inquiry on Thursday. The advocate representing the central agency sought time to file a reply to the petitions.
After hearing both sides, the bench directed the Enforcement Directorate to file its counter affidavit by January 5 and adjourned the hearing.