2021 (2) TMI 1355 - HC - Money Laundering

Non-removal of office objections - appellant submitted that owing to urgency in the matter, a memo was moved for listing the case before the Court - HELD THAT - It is deemed appropriate to dispose of this appeal by relegating appellant to the Appellate Tribunal reserving liberty to him to press for interim /protective orders pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. It is noted that the next date of hearing by the Appellate Tribunal is 11.02.2021. On the said date or any subsequent date, the Appellate Tribunal may consider the interim application of the appellant as well as the main matter. Pending disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant herein before the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent shall not take any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned order as well as the notice dated 07.06.2018.

Summary

Issues: Urgency in listing the case, appeal against order of Single Judge, seeking protective orders, pursuing dual remedies, non-removal of office objections.

1. Urgency in Listing the Case:
The appeal was listed for non-removal of office objections, but the appellant's counsel requested to move a memo due to urgency. The appellant's counsel argued that the appeal was directed against the order of the Single Judge and emphasized the urgency in the matter, leading to the listing of the case before the Court.

2. Appeal Against Order of Single Judge:
The appeal was directed against the order of the Single Judge passed in a specific writ petition. The appellant's counsel contended that since urgency was involved, the appeal was moved and listed before the Court. The appellant sought protective orders pending the removal of office objections.

3. Seeking Protective Orders:
The caveator respondent objected to granting any stay order. It was argued that pursuing dual remedies, one before the Appellate Tribunal and another before the Court, was not permissible. The caveator respondent suggested that the appellant should seek interim/protective orders from the Appellate Tribunal and be relegated to pursue remedies there.

4. Pursuing Dual Remedies:
The appellant's counsel highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal was not sitting regularly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. An application seeking interim/protective orders was filed before the Tribunal, and until its consideration and disposal, no precipitative action should be taken against the appellant based on the impugned notice.

5. Non-Removal of Office Objections:
Despite the disposal of the appeal, the appellant's counsel was directed to remove specific office objections. Office objection No.19 was complied with, and the removal of other office objections was waived. The judgment clarified that all contentions raised in the writ petition and the appeal could be argued before the Appellate Tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka addressed the urgency in listing the case, the appeal against the Single Judge's order, the request for protective orders, the issue of pursuing dual remedies, and the non-removal of office objections. The judgment emphasized the importance of seeking remedies from the Appellate Tribunal and clarified the procedures to be followed pending the disposal of the appeal.