Bombay HC refuses to stay auction of rare paintings belonging to Nirav Modi

TIE

The plea filed by Rohin sought a direction to ED and auction house, Saffron Art, to not carry out the auction. The auction includes 15 rare paintings, including those painted by MF Hussain and Amrita Sher-Gil.

Mumbai, 04 Mar: The Bombay High Court Wednesday refused to stay March 5 auction of 15 rare paintings and other items owned by Rohin Trust of which fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, his wife and son Rohin are beneficiaries.

 

A bench of acting Chief Justice Bhushan P Dharmadhikari and justice N R Borkar asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to deposit auction proceeds in a separate bank account and directed that the amount should not be appropriated for any other purpose until further orders.

 

The plea filed by Rohin sought a direction to ED and auction house, Saffron Art, to not carry out the auction. The auction includes 15 rare paintings, including those painted by MF Hussain and Amrita Sher-Gil.

 

Nirav Modi was declared a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act on December 5, 2019.

 

Senior Counsel Amit Desai for petitioner Rohin Modi on Wednesday had submitted that paintings do not belong to Nirav Modi but a trust. He also said that the owner of the painting did not receive any notice pertaining to attachment and auction.

 

Rohin Modi submitted that he was a minor when paintings were attached and he was unaware of the ED’s action of attachment of paintings and therefore approached the High Court late.

 

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for ED opposed the plea and submitted that a due process was followed for attachment of paintings and other items under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and same was publicised.

 

Singh also submitted that auctioning was required as the cost of preserving paintings was excessive.

 

ED said that Rohin was not the sole beneficiary of the trust and Nirav Modi and his wife, Ami, were also beneficiaries of the trust. Paintings were purchased with the money misappropriated by Nirav and hence Rohin’s claim that his interest would be prejudiced was not maintainable.

 

After hearing submissions, a bench led by acting justice BP Dharmadhikari said that there is no material evidence to justify late approach by Rohin and that ED did not get enough time to respond to the plea which was filed on March 2.

 

The court also noted that owner trust or other has not approached against the auction.

 

The HC further directed ED to submit a report of the auction and monies received from the sale of paintings seven days after completion of the auction.