Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 775 - HC - Money LaunderingIssues Involved: 1. Legality of the provisional attachment order dated 25-03-2022 and its confirmation on 15-09-2022. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition. 3. Availability of alternative statutory remedies. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order The petitioners challenged the order dated 15-09-2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi, confirming the provisional attachment order dated 25-03-2022 u/s 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002. The petitioners argued that the order was passed without hearing them, despite being affected parties. They contended that the attachment of the entire land and some towers was illegal and arbitrary, depriving bona fide purchasers of their property. They also claimed that they were neither accused in the scheduled offences nor privy to the transactions related to laundering of proceeds of crime. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the petition, arguing that the ECIR was registered in Jaipur and the provisional attachment order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi, thus falling outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Court, however, did not decide on the jurisdiction issue, noting that it was unnecessary given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Issue 3: Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedies The Court emphasized that the petitioners had not availed the statutory remedy provided u/s 8(8) of the Act, which allows claimants to approach the Special Court for restoration of property during the trial. The Court noted that the petitioners could have approached the Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act at Jaipur, which had taken cognizance of the case. Additionally, the petitioners had the remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority before the Appellate Tribunal u/s 26 of the Act. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedies provided under the Act. The Court also noted that the time spent in the High Court would be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
|