9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1360 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - Principles of forum conveniens - Territorial Jurisdiction - the parties are all residents of Bangalore and that the principal order of attachment was also passed by an authority situate in that State whereas the properties which form subject matter of the said writ petitions are all situate in the State of Karnataka - HELD THAT - The Court notes that in AASMA MOHAMMED FAROOQ AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2018 (12) TMI 443 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Division Bench had also noticed the judgment rendered by the Court in VISHNU SECURITY SERVICES VERSUS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR. 2012 (2) TMI 621 - DELHI HIGH COURT . It was held that the Division Bench clarified in a case where the original authority is in one State and the seat of the appellate authority is located in another State a writ petition would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner who has a right to choose his forum which need to be respected. The Division Bench clarified that normally in such circumstances writ petition would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the doctrine of forum conveniens has to be applied. This Court is of the opinion that since the Appellate Forum has already been approached and the petitioner stands deprived of his right to pursue the remedy available it cannot be said that the Court would lack territorial jurisdiction. List on 04.11.2022 .
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. 2. Maintainability of the writ petitions based on the location of parties and properties. 3. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens in the context of the writ petitions. 4. Challenge to the authority and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 5. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the appellate forum. 6. Consideration of interim directions in light of previous judgments. Analysis: 1. The primary issue raised in the judgment pertains to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. The respondent contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction due to the location of the parties and properties involved. Citing previous judgments, the respondent argued that the writ petitions should be dismissed based on the principles of forum conveniens. 2. The Court reviewed the precedents cited, particularly the case of Aasma Mohammed Farooq, which discussed the doctrine of forum conveniens in situations where the original and appellate authorities are in different states. The judgment clarified that the petitioner has the right to choose the forum and that the writ petition could be maintainable in both places unless extreme inconvenience exists. 3. Referring to the case of Vishnu Security Services, the Court noted that parties could choose either court, including the one where the appellate authority is located. The judgment in Aasma Mohammed Farooq reiterated that the doctrine of forum conveniens should only be invoked in cases of total inconvenience to entertain the writ petition. 4. In the specific cases of the writ petitions, one involved an appeal already filed, while the other challenged the authority of the Adjudicating Officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court found that the Appellate Forum had been approached, and the petitioner's right to pursue remedies was not deprived, thus establishing territorial jurisdiction. 5. Regarding the challenge to the Adjudicating Officer's authority in the second writ petition, the Court affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority was within its territorial jurisdiction. The objections raised were negatived, and the issue of forum conveniens was left open for further consideration. 6. The Court also considered interim directions based on previous judgments, such as Vikas WSP and Others vs. Directorate Enforcement and Another. Temporary restraints were placed on the respondents from taking certain steps under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and on the petitioner from dealing with the attached property until the next listing date. Overall, the judgment extensively analyzed the jurisdictional issues, application of legal doctrines, and considerations for interim directions, ensuring a comprehensive review of the complex legal matters involved in the writ petitions.
|
