2021 (7) TMI 1294 - HC - Money Laundering

Provisional attachment of properties - proceedings in respect of the provisional attachment order are still pending before the Karnataka High Court - HELD THAT - In view of the appointment of an Official Liquidator she is no longer representing the company, seeks to contend that the shareholders have a vital interest in the outcome of the present petition and therefore, ought to be heard. However, when queried as to why, in light of the admitted position that the issue raised in the present petition flows out of the initial order dated 27.02.2017, proceedings in regard whereof are pending before the Karnataka High Court; the petitioner, as also the applicant, ought not to approach the same court. She prays for time to obtain instructions. At request, list on 04.08.2021.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 13.11.2020 by M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited seeking release of attached properties, maintainability of the writ petition, appointment of Official Liquidator, concealment of facts by the petitioner, shareholder's interest in the petition, jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a writ petition filed by M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited challenging the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA. The petitioner seeks the release of attached properties following the cessation of the Provisional Attachment Order no. 05/2017 dated 27.02.2017. The respondents filed an application seeking disposal of the writ petition on grounds of maintainability. The history of the case reveals that various legal actions were taken by both parties, including appeals and orders passed by different authorities and courts.

The Provisional Attachment Order 05/2017 was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11.10.2017. However, the petitioner had approached the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition, which was rejected on 06.10.2017. Subsequent legal actions were taken by both parties, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the confirming order dated 11.10.2017 and remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Karnataka High Court stayed the operation of the Tribunal's order dated 11.09.2019, which is under appeal. The petitioner approached the Adjudicating Authority, contending that no fresh order had been passed within the stipulated time, leading to the rejection of the plea and the subsequent filing of the present petition.

During the pendency of the present petition, an Official Liquidator was appointed for the petitioner company by the National Company Law Tribunal. An application for impleadment was moved by a shareholder of the petitioner company, claiming a vital interest in the outcome of the petition. The Official Liquidator opposed the application, asserting that only they could represent the company. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable before the Court and that the petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the Provisional Attachment Order before the Karnataka High Court, thus concealing facts and lacking jurisdiction to approach the Court.

The respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner should have approached the Karnataka High Court, which has stayed the operation of the relevant order. The petitioner's representative acknowledged the appointment of the Official Liquidator and the pending proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, requesting an adjournment. The Court directed the matter to be listed for a future date, allowing time for further submissions and considerations regarding the shareholders' interest and the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court.