9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 549 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - availability of efficacious alternative remedy of an Appeal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act of 2002 - Provisional attachment order - petition was filed after expiry of 180 days of the passing of the said order - It was contended by counsel for the petitioner that on the expiry of 180 day period, the provisional attachment order comes to an end and dies a statutory death - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA VERSUS SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT has held that Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. This Court is of the view that the writ petition is definitely maintainable but given the effective and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 25 the writ Court should be slow to entertain it. An appellate authority is better equipped to deal with the contentions of the petitioner given the procedural powers conferred on it - The Appellate authority is empowered to deal with all questions raised by the petitioner including the legality and or validity of the order of Adjudicating authority. In the backdrop of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Act of 2002 and the dicta of the Hon ble Apex Court, this court is of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained. More so when the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority against the order of Adjudicating Authority, confirming of order of provisional attachment. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. 2. Confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act, 2002. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act, 2002. Summary: 1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order: The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment order No. 05/2021 dated 29th October 2021, issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002, on the grounds that it expired after 180 days without confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner argued that the order "comes to an end and dies a statutory death" upon the expiry of this period. 2. Confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order: During the pendency of the writ petition, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order on 25th July 2021 under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act. The petitioner raised various arguments challenging the merits and legality of this confirmation. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The primary issue was whether the writ petition should be entertained given the availability of an "efficacious alternative remedy" of an appeal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act, 2002. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. and State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Ors., which emphasized that the High Court should generally refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy is available. The court concluded that while the writ petition is maintainable, it should be "slow to entertain it" due to the effective alternative remedy of appeal. Conclusion: The court held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained, especially since the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is deemed better equipped to address the petitioner's contentions, including the legality and validity of the Adjudicating Authority's order. The court disposed of WPA No. 11161 of 2023, directing all parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the court's official website.
|
