CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on all further proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in connection with the alleged TASMAC money laundering case.
A division bench comprising Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders on petitions filed by the two individuals, observing that the ED's search operations lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of incriminating material.
“There is an interim stay on all further proceedings (by the ED) against the petitioners pursuant to the authorisation dated 15.5.2025, pending disposal of the main writ petitions,” the bench stated in its order.
The court further directed the ED to return all properties seized and sealed during the search conducted on May 16, until the writ petitions are finally adjudicated.
Taking a prima facie view, the bench remarked, “The authorisation and the search conducted by the respondents (ED) appear wholly without jurisdiction, since there was no incriminating material. We consciously refrain from referring to the material produced by the respondents for obvious reasons.”
The court added that the supposed information presented by the ED had “absolutely no semblance of any information” that could have reasonably led to a belief that the petitioners were involved in money laundering.
The bench also rejected the request made by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for a three-week stay on the operation of the order, intended to facilitate an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the court denied the special public prosecutor’s plea seeking more time to complete the cloning of electronic devices seized from the petitioners before returning them.
Akash Bhaskaran and Vikram Ravindran had filed writ petitions seeking to declare the ED’s search operations and the sealing of two office and residential premises as illegal. They also filed miscellaneous petitions requesting interim relief to unseal the premises and retrieve their seized gadgets.
Senior counsels Vijay Narayan, V. Giri, and Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there was no First Information Report (FIR) for a predicate offence registered against the petitioners, nor were they named as accused in the money laundering case.