2018 (3) TMI 2019 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering - provisional attachment order - petitioner/Bank has already filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT - In the light of the fact that the petitioner/Bank has already filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the merits of the matter not gone into, and suffice it to state that the challenge to the order of provisional attachment is not maintainable, since, any person, aggrieved by the order of provisional attachment, has an effective remedy under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner/Bank is misconceived, as they were required to agitate the matter under the provisions of the Act and by following the procedure contemplated therein. However, since the petitioner/Bank has already preferred the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, it is open to them to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to provisional order of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard a Writ Petition challenging a provisional order of attachment issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, along with a show cause notice under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner, a Bank, contended that the provisional attachment order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, against which the Bank filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The second respondent, represented by a Special Public Prosecutor, filed a Counter Affidavit justifying their actions. The Court noted that since the Bank had already appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, they should pursue their remedy there, as any person aggrieved by a provisional attachment order has an effective remedy under the Act. The Court held that the challenge to the provisional attachment order was not maintainable in the High Court, as the Bank should follow the procedure under the Act. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the Court emphasized that the petitioner Bank should pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, as any challenge to the provisional attachment order should be addressed following the procedures outlined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court's decision was based on the availability of an effective remedy under the Act for persons aggrieved by such orders, directing the Bank to follow the appropriate legal procedures. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and established procedures in addressing issues related to provisional attachment orders under the Act, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.