9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 2035 - HC - Money LaunderingRectification of mistake - typographical errors in the impugned Order - HELD THAT - There were only typographical errors in the impugned Order, which hereby stand rectified. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner. It is also observed that before concluding, that essentially, the prayer made in both the Writ Petitions was to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. It paragraph 84 of the impugned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA. Therefore, the relief sought may have existed at the time when the petition was filed in 2019, but with the findings of the Apex Court, the relief stood answered and satisfied. It is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the other reliefs as sought in their prayers in the Writ Petitions, before the appropriate Forum. Application disposed off.
Issues:
Recall of judgment in Writ Petition No. 384/2019 Analysis: The petitioner filed applications seeking the recall of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 384/2019, claiming that the judgment was erroneous as it did not address the grounds raised by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that certain findings in the judgment were not supported by the pleadings of either party and caused prejudice. It was highlighted that the petitioner was only a witness in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case and was never arrested in that case. The respondent's Special Counsel acknowledged that the petitioner was a witness in the PMLA case but an accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. The High Court noted that the two petitions filed by the petitioner had mixed up facts related to the PMLA and CBI cases. Typographical errors in the judgment were pointed out and rectified, clarifying that the petitioner was never arrested in the PMLA case and remained a witness. The errors regarding the petitioner's status in the CBI case were also corrected. The Court clarified that certain observations in the judgment, indicating the petitioner as an accused in the PMLA case, were factually incorrect and deleted those portions. The judgment highlighted the petitioner's right to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the PMLA, referencing a Supreme Court case that upheld the provision's validity. The relief sought by the petitioner was deemed satisfied by the Apex Court's decision, and the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge other reliefs sought in the writ petitions before the appropriate forum. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended for two more weeks, and the applications for recall were disposed of accordingly.
|
