9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 2005 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Provisional attachment - SCN issued to the petitioner, though an order under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the Act is yet to be passed - HELD THAT - In a similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in INDIAN BANK VERSUS THE REGISTRAR/ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (PMLA) , THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, M/S. PRP EXPORTS 2018 (3) TMI 2019 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that 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. There are no requirement to go into the issues raised on facts. Suffice it to state that four more weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the petitioner to give a suitable reply to the show cause notice. On receipt of the same, the adjudicating authority is expected to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to order of provisional attachment under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
In this judgment, the High Court of Madras addressed a writ petition challenging an order of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The court noted the steps taken by the adjudication authority, including sending a complaint in accordance with Section 5(5) of the Act and issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The court referenced a previous Division Bench decision to emphasize that the challenge to the provisional attachment order was not maintainable as the petitioner had an effective remedy under the Act. The court granted the petitioner four more weeks to respond to the show cause notice and directed the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with the law. The court also left open the issue of subjective satisfaction, including the reason to believe. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the provided directions, and no costs were awarded.
|
