2021 (4) TMI 607 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking release of public amenities such as road, garden, STP plant, club, electricity grid, etc. from the purview of attachment order - property involved in money- laundering - Proceeds of crime - HELD THAT - The petitioners are having remedy to appear in the proceedings pending before the adjudicating authority and they can put their claim before the adjudicating authority. The order passed by the adjudicating authority is appellable u/s. 26 of the PMLA Act, therefore, the petitioners are not remedy-less against the impugned order. They are having alternative and efficacious remedy. The PMLA Act is a complete code in itself. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to remedy available to them in law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment order dated 25.2.2021 by Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance. Seeking release of public amenities from attachment.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment order dated 25.2.2021, seeking the release of public amenities like road, garden, STP plant, club, electricity grid from the attachment order. Petitioners had invested their savings in plots in a colony developed by respondent No.3 named "Empire Wild Flower." They verified all relevant documents before purchase, including ownership documents, development permissions, and registrations. When they approached respondent No.3 for sale-deed execution, they discovered the attachment order. The petitioners contended that the attachment order affected public amenities totaling 72899 Sq.mtrs., prompting their petition to the Court.

The petitioners argued that respondent No.3 had executed sale-deeds for the plots in the colony to them, but only 98 plot-owners were listed in the attachment proceedings, excluding 18233 Sq.mtrs. out of the total project area of 22,815 Sq.mtrs. However, this argument was not substantiated in the writ petition.

The Assistant Solicitor General representing respondent No.1, Union of India, stated that the attachment order was issued under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) for 180 days on all properties of respondent No.3. He highlighted that the petitioners could approach the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of the PMLA Act to challenge the provisional attachment order. The provisional order was temporary and subject to approval by the adjudicating authority, providing the petitioners with a legal remedy. The PMLA Act is a comprehensive legal framework governing such matters, offering an avenue for redressal.

The Court examined Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA Act, emphasizing that the petitioners had the option to participate in the adjudication process and present their case before the adjudicating authority. The order by the adjudicating authority could be appealed under Section 26 of the PMLA Act, ensuring that the petitioners were not without legal recourse. The Court concluded that the petitioners had an alternative and effective remedy available within the framework of the PMLA Act, which constituted a self-sufficient legal mechanism. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue the legal remedies available to them.