2016 (3) TMI 1193 - HC - Money Laundering

Provisional attachment of the properties - Prevention of Money Laundering - Held that - Having regard to the fact that the time granted by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the request of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein for substitution of property attached has already expired, we direct that the appellant herein shall consider the request of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein in terms of the directions in the order under appeal within two weeks from today.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Maintainability of the writ petition, Territorial jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Single Judge in a writ petition assailing the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the writ petitioner was situated in Chennai. The Single Judge rejected this objection and directed the appellant to treat the writ petition as a representation for substitution of the attached property. The appeal primarily challenged the jurisdictional aspect. The High Court, after hearing both parties, upheld the order under appeal, emphasizing that it should not be considered as a precedent. The Court directed the appellant to consider the request for substitution of property within two weeks.

Maintainability of the writ petition:
The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, challenging the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the High Court due to the writ petitioner being situated in Chennai. The Single Judge rejected this objection and directed the appellant to treat the writ petition as a representation for substitution of the attached property. The appeal primarily contested the maintainability of the writ petition on jurisdictional grounds. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's order and directed the appellant to consider the request for substitution of property within two weeks.

Territorial jurisdiction:
The key issue in the appeal was the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant challenged the Single Judge's conclusion that the Court had jurisdiction in the matter despite the writ petitioner being located in Chennai. The High Court, after considering arguments from both parties, found no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The Court emphasized that the order should not be treated as a precedent. The appellant was directed to consider the request for substitution of property within two weeks. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.