DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) On resuming the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents at the outset mentioned that as per the search made on the site of Supreme Court of India, an SLP No. 4466/2017 preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement against the judgment dated 22.3.2017 is found to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2.) Copy of the order dated 24.7.2017 has been placed on record by learned counsel for the respondents passed in SLP (Crl) No. 4466/2017 titled as Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. , which reads as under:- "Leave granted. In the meantime, the impugned judgment and order will operate as a precedent. Liberty is granted to file Rejoinder Affidavit within a period of 4 weeks from today."
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that heavy reliance was placed by the rival side on Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) which was mainly based on the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. It has also been contended by counsel for the respondent that in Ajay Kumar Gupta's case (supra), the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab was considered. Thus, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Gupta's case was per incurium. It has further been contended by counsel for the respondents that in the order 24.7.2017, referred to above, the judgment in "Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. " has been held as to operate as a precedent, so the finding given in Ajay Kumar's Case also goes away and cannot be taken help by the petitioner's side.;