2015 (6) TMI 1104 - HC - Money Laundering

Provisional Orders of Attachment - Held that - As referring to extract Section 2(na) of PMLA investigation includes all the proceedings under this Act and the impugned Provisional Orders of Attachment have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of PMLA. Therefore, the proceeding under Section 5(1) of PMLA also comes under the definition of investigation . As per the above said interim order of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India 2013 (4) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , this Court shall not pass any order, which may, in any manner, impede the investigation being carried out by the Directorate of Enforcement.Therefore, this Court accepts the first preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. So far as the second preliminary issue is concerned, this Court is not inclined to go into the same for the reason that the writ petitions cannot be entertained by this Court and hence, it cannot give any findings whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law or petitioners have to avail the alternate remedy available under the PMLA. Therefore, this Court holds that the writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court and they are dismissed. The petitioners, if so advised, are at liberty to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court of India for redressal of their grievance. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petitions in light of the Supreme Court monitoring the Aircel Maxis Case.
2. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given the alternative remedies available under the PMLA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could entertain the writ petitions considering that the Supreme Court was monitoring the Aircel Maxis Case. The respondent argued that the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.10660/2010, was overseeing the investigation of the 2G Spectrum Case, Aircel Maxis Case, and Additional Spectrum Case. The Supreme Court had directed that no court should pass any order that might impede the ongoing investigation by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement. The High Court acknowledged this directive and noted that the Supreme Court's interim orders explicitly stated that it was monitoring the investigation and receiving periodic reports. Therefore, the High Court concluded that it should not pass any order that could interfere with the investigation, thereby accepting the respondent's preliminary objection.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:
The second issue was whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the alternative remedies available under the PMLA. The respondent contended that once a property is provisionally attached, an adjudication under Section 8 of the PMLA is required. If the provisional attachment is confirmed, the Director or an authorized officer must take possession of the property. Appeals against such orders can be made to the Appellate Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court. The respondent argued that, given these alternative remedies, the writ petitions were premature. The High Court, however, decided not to delve into this issue, as it had already determined that it could not entertain the writ petitions due to the Supreme Court's oversight of the case.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that it could not entertain them due to the Supreme Court's ongoing monitoring of the investigation in the Aircel Maxis Case. The petitioners were advised to approach the Supreme Court for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.