2024 (10) TMI 1071 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - attachment of the immovable property - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the instant case, on the complaint filed by the competent authority under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the PML Act, the Adjudicating Authority i.e, respondent No.4 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the PML Act, has passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 in Original Complaint No. 1738 of 2022 confirming the Provisional Attachment order No.11 of 2022 passed by respondent No.3 and against the said order, an appeal lies under Section 26 of the PML Act. In the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court laid down the following principles for entertaining the writ petitions, when alternative remedy is available. In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others 2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB) the Hon ble Apex Court while reiterating the principles laid down above, has observed that the High Courts will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. In the instant case, in view of the complicated issues involved in this writ petition, which require determination basing on the evidence, and as the petitioner is having alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 26 of PML Act, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act before the Appellate Tribunal. This Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and on filing such appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall examine and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking to set aside orders confirming provisional attachment of property under PML Act, challenge to the adjudicating authority's competence, availability of alternative remedy under PML Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, challenged the provisional attachment of his property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIRs related to money laundering offenses, yet his property was attached. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority lacked the necessary legal expertise to issue the attachment order. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal provided under Section 26 of the PML Act instead of filing a writ petition.

The court examined Section 8 of the PML Act, which outlines the adjudication process. It was noted that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order based on a complaint filed under the PML Act. The court highlighted that an appeal lies under Section 26 of the PML Act against such orders. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions. The court referred to cases such as United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal to underscore the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court.

Considering the complexity of the issues involved and the availability of a statutory appeal under the PML Act, the court held that the petitioner should pursue the remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal process under Section 26 of the PML Act. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the legal principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The judgment underscored the significance of following established legal procedures and mechanisms for redressal of grievances under the relevant statutes.