9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 443 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of the petition - Appeal to High Court - whether this Court would not like to entertain the petition as the same would militate against the principles of forum convenient and also in view of Section 42 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 - jurisdiction of High Court - Held that - Mr. Chaudhri may be right in contending that the notice under Section 8 of the Act has been issued by the Authority in Delhi so jurisdiction is there for this Court to entertain the writ petition. But merely because a part of cause of action has arisen under the jurisdiction of this Court whether this Court needs to exercise its jurisdiction is the question need to be answered. This Court is of the view that it should not for more than one reason; that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is based in Mumbai. The provisional attachment order has been passed in Mumbai. The complaint though filed before the adjudicating authority in Delhi it encompasses all the facts that have arisen in Mumbai. The properties are in Mumbai. It is only after filing of the original complaint as contemplated under Section 5(5) of the Act before the adjudicating authority which is located in Delhi that the impugned notice has been issued from Delhi but the fact remains that nothing has happened in Delhi. Only notice to show cause has been issued. After the adjudicating authority decides the issue there is a forum of appeal available to the petitioner. Even thereafter the remedy of appeal to the High Court is also available under Section 42 of the Act which has already been enumerated above. In other words in the case in hand if an order is passed by the Appellate Authority it shall be the Bombay High Court which shall have the jurisdiction for both i.e. the person aggrieved and the Central Government against the order is passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore it shall be the Bombay High Court and accordingly this Court is of the view that it should not entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition in the Delhi High Court. 2. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens. 3. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Petition in the Delhi High Court: The primary objection raised by the respondents was the maintainability of the petition in the Delhi High Court. The respondents argued that the petition should not be entertained as it would contravene the principles of forum conveniens and Section 42 of the PMLA. They cited the judgment of the Five Judges in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and other relevant cases to support their contention that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum since the property and the petitioner were based in Mumbai. The petitioners countered this by highlighting that a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, as the adjudicating authority issuing the notice was based in Delhi. They relied on the judgment in J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors., which supported the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court when a part of the cause of action arises within its territory. 2. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens: The court examined the doctrine of forum conveniens, which allows a court to refuse jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate for the case. The judgment in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. was pivotal, stating that even if a part of the cause of action arises in a particular jurisdiction, the High Court may still refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction if another forum is more convenient. The court also referred to the judgment in Vishnu Security Services, which clarified that while a writ petition could be maintainable in both the original and appellate jurisdictions, the doctrine of forum conveniens should be applied in extreme cases where one forum is significantly more convenient. 3. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the PMLA: Section 42 of the PMLA stipulates that appeals should be filed in the High Court where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business. The respondents argued that since the petitioner and the property were based in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum for the appeal. The court noted that while the notice under Section 8 of the PMLA was issued by an authority in Delhi, the substantial events and properties related to the case were in Mumbai. It was also observed that if an order was passed by the Appellate Authority, the appeal would lie in the Bombay High Court, making it the more convenient forum. Conclusion: The court concluded that despite a part of the cause of action arising in Delhi, the principle of forum conveniens favored the Bombay High Court due to the location of the petitioner and the property. The court decided not to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief. The interim protection granted was extended for ten days to allow the petitioner to seek further recourse. Final Orders: 1. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Bombay High Court. 2. The interim order dated November 30, 2018, was extended for ten days. 3. The application for stay (CM. No. 48492/2018) was dismissed as infructuous.
|
