<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday extended its interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate's summons issued to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife and a state minister in connection with the MUDA land allotment scam.</p><p>The stay against the summons issued to the CM's wife, Parvathi B M, and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh will remain in effect until February 20.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, directed the ED to submit its objections within a week and scheduled the next hearing for February 20.</p>.MUDA 'scam' probe: Karnataka High Court rejects plea to transfer case against CM Siddaramaiah to CBI.<p>Senior Advocates Sandesh J Chouta and Vikram Huilgol, representing Parvathi, argued for quashing both the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and the Enforcement Case.</p><p>Chouta contended that at the time of initiating the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report), there were no proceeds of crime. He questioned whether an ED inquiry under the PMLA could proceed while the Lokayukta was still investigating the predicate offence.</p><p>"The ECIR was registered four days after the Lokayukta police filed the FIR on the trial court’s direction. For the PMLA to apply, the accused must have benefited from the proceeds of crime. In this case, the sites in question were returned and are now under the authorities' control," Chouta argued.</p>.<p>In response, the court remarked, "The crime will not vanish." Chouta countered, stating that PMLA provisions could not be invoked if the sites had been surrendered before proceedings began.</p><p>Senior advocate C V Nagesh, appearing for Suresh, pointed out that he took office as a minister only in June 2023, whereas the allegations pertain to the illegal allotment of sites before his tenure.</p><p>"The proceeds of crime relate to the unauthorized allotment of sites. How am I connected to this when I assumed office only in June 2023. Before that, I had no involvement with MUDA. Moreover, the original complaint, which is private, does not even mention my name," Nagesh argued.</p>.<p>He further questioned the basis for ED issuing the summons, emphasising there was no reference to him in the complaint.</p><p>The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in place of over three acres of her land, which the authority had acquired for developing a residential layout.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday extended its interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate's summons issued to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife and a state minister in connection with the MUDA land allotment scam.</p><p>The stay against the summons issued to the CM's wife, Parvathi B M, and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh will remain in effect until February 20.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, directed the ED to submit its objections within a week and scheduled the next hearing for February 20.</p>.MUDA 'scam' probe: Karnataka High Court rejects plea to transfer case against CM Siddaramaiah to CBI.<p>Senior Advocates Sandesh J Chouta and Vikram Huilgol, representing Parvathi, argued for quashing both the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and the Enforcement Case.</p><p>Chouta contended that at the time of initiating the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report), there were no proceeds of crime. He questioned whether an ED inquiry under the PMLA could proceed while the Lokayukta was still investigating the predicate offence.</p><p>"The ECIR was registered four days after the Lokayukta police filed the FIR on the trial court’s direction. For the PMLA to apply, the accused must have benefited from the proceeds of crime. In this case, the sites in question were returned and are now under the authorities' control," Chouta argued.</p>.<p>In response, the court remarked, "The crime will not vanish." Chouta countered, stating that PMLA provisions could not be invoked if the sites had been surrendered before proceedings began.</p><p>Senior advocate C V Nagesh, appearing for Suresh, pointed out that he took office as a minister only in June 2023, whereas the allegations pertain to the illegal allotment of sites before his tenure.</p><p>"The proceeds of crime relate to the unauthorized allotment of sites. How am I connected to this when I assumed office only in June 2023. Before that, I had no involvement with MUDA. Moreover, the original complaint, which is private, does not even mention my name," Nagesh argued.</p>.<p>He further questioned the basis for ED issuing the summons, emphasising there was no reference to him in the complaint.</p><p>The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in place of over three acres of her land, which the authority had acquired for developing a residential layout.</p>