2015 (12) TMI 1336 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of writ petition - Alternate remedy - Issue of notice under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Held that - There is substance in the preliminary objection raised by Mr Bharadwaj and since Mr Sathe has fairly accepted the position that the alternate remedy is efficacious and complete, we dispose of this Writ Petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to challenge the notice at page 173 of the paper book. The Appellate Authority has also been approached with an interim application and we expect the Appellate Authority to consider all contentions of the Petitioner and equally those noticed by us today. The suggestions and proposals can also be placed before the said Appellate Authority. The Authority shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. To enable the Petitioner to pursue the interim application, we direct that if the original Petitioners or their successor is in possession of the subject immovable property, then, they may not be dis-possessed therefrom for a period of two months - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice for provisional attachment of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Applicability of alternate remedy through the Appellate Authority.
3. Protection of possession of the property during legal proceedings.
4. Proposal for depositing money equivalent to the property value to withdraw attachment order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment addresses the validity of a notice informing the Petitioner about the provisional attachment of an immovable property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and subsequently, the Deputy Directorate of Enforcement was set to take possession of the property. The Petitioner challenged this notice, leading to legal proceedings.

Issue 2: The court discusses the availability of an alternate remedy through the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Petitioner had approached the Tribunal, but the Chairperson was unavailable at that time. However, the Tribunal has now been constituted and holds the power to decide the appeal and any interim applications. The court emphasizes the importance of pursuing this alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority.

Issue 3: Regarding the protection of possession of the property, the court directs that the Petitioner or their successor should not be dispossessed from the property for a specified period. However, the substituted Petitioner is prohibited from creating third-party rights or parting with possession of the property under attachment.

Issue 4: The judgment considers a proposal by the Petitioner to deposit money equivalent to the property value with the authority, suggesting the withdrawal of the provisional attachment order. The court acknowledges this proposal and directs the Appellate Authority to consider it along with all contentions raised by the parties involved.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petition, citing the availability of an efficacious and complete alternate remedy through the Appellate Authority. The judgment emphasizes the need for the Petitioner to pursue the interim application and main appeal before the Appellate Authority, ensuring all contentions are duly considered. The court's directive aims to protect the possession of the property during legal proceedings while maintaining the rights and contentions of all parties involved.