2021 (6) TMI 803 - HC - Money Laundering

Scope of review petition - error apparent on the face of the record or not - validity and/or legality of the registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in proceedings - effective alternative remedy under Section 8 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It has to be observed that the scope of the Review petition is very limited. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate submitted that under the guise of Review, the review applicants are only trying to re-argue the case. Therefore, we are not traversing into the submissions made by the parties. For the purpose of reviewing the matter, the matter has to fall within Order 47 of CPC. In the guise of seeking review, it cannot be reargued. This Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is alternative remedy and there is no jurisdiction vested with this Court. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, an appeal has to be filed against the order passed in the writ petition even if the review applicants feel that the conclusion is erroneous in nature. The Review Applications are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the case, which cannot be permitted. The High Court is designed under the explanation to Section 42, which means, the place where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The criteria is not the place where the properties are situated and the jurisdiction is person centric and not property centric. If the appeal is filed by the Central Government, then the jurisdiction will be where the respondent resides or carries on business. Thus, Section 42 is purely person centric whereas a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 5 of PMLA is based on cause of action and not where the person resides. Therefore, the appeal filed under Section 42 of the PMLA will be filed before this Court and this Court has jurisdiction. Such provision cannot be applied for challenging the provisional order of attachment or ECIR in this case. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the Review Applicants. The scope of review application is limited and it cannot be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record - the Review Applications are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of the registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
2. Validity and legality of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras.
4. Availability of an alternative remedy under Section 8 of PMLA.
5. Scope of review under Order 47 of CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Legality of ECIR:
The review applicants challenged the registration of ECIR No. KCZO/4/2014 dated 19.08.2014, arguing that the provisions of PMLA demarcate the jurisdiction of the Court concerning criminal prosecution and attachment/confiscation of property. They contended that the actions under Sections 5, 16, 17, and 18 of PMLA should be confined to the jurisdiction where the property is situated, thus questioning the respondent's jurisdiction to issue the Provisional Order of Attachment.

2. Validity and Legality of PAO:
The review applicants also contested the Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2019 dated 22.07.2019, asserting that the order was issued without proper jurisdiction since the properties and individuals involved were located in Tamil Nadu. They argued that the adjudication under Section 8 of PMLA does not provide for examining the legality of the ECIR or the Provisional Order of Attachment, thus necessitating the writ petitions.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras:
The court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the High Court of Madras lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Special Court at Kerala was seized of the matter. The review applicants argued that this was an error apparent on the face of the record, citing that the jurisdiction should be determined based on where the property or the concerned persons reside or conduct business, as per Section 42 of PMLA.

4. Availability of an Alternative Remedy Under Section 8 of PMLA:
The court also dismissed the writ petitions citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 8 of PMLA. The review applicants contended that Section 8 does not provide a remedy to challenge the ECIR or the Provisional Order of Attachment, and thus, the only remedy available was to file the writ petition. They argued that the adjudication under Section 8 is limited to confirming the attachment and does not cover the legality of the initial orders.

5. Scope of Review Under Order 47 of CPC:
The court emphasized that the scope of a review petition is limited and cannot be used to re-argue the case. It stated that the review applicants were attempting to re-argue the case under the guise of a review petition, which is not permissible. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, which outlined that review proceedings are not an appeal and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madras dismissed the Review Applications, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the original order dated 17.12.2020. The court reiterated that the writ petitions were rightly dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 8 of PMLA. The review applications were deemed an attempt to re-argue the case, which is not permissible under the scope of review jurisdiction.