2024 (7) TMI 557 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - it was held by High Court that ' Since the complaint itself is not maintainable, the respondent has no jurisdiction to attach the properties of the petitioners and therefore the order of attachment passed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 dated 30.09.2022 impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be quashed and hence, quashed.' HELD THAT - It is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Special leave petition dismissal
- Clarification on impugned judgment not hindering Directorate of Enforcement proceedings
- Disposal of pending applications

Special Leave Petition Dismissal:
The Supreme Court, comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, after hearing the counsel for both parties, decided not to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed. This decision signifies the Court's stance on the matter presented before it, indicating a refusal to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment in question.

Clarification on Impugned Judgment:
While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court provided a crucial clarification. It stated that despite the dismissal of the petition, the impugned judgment would not obstruct the Directorate of Enforcement from initiating suitable proceedings in compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This clarification ensures that the impugned judgment does not prevent or impede the Directorate of Enforcement from taking necessary actions as per the law, preserving the agency's authority to proceed with enforcement actions.

Disposal of Pending Applications:
Additionally, the Court ordered that any pending application(s) related to the case would be considered disposed of. This directive implies that any outstanding requests or motions awaiting resolution before the Court are now deemed resolved or addressed as a consequence of the Court's decision on the special leave petition and the clarification provided regarding the impugned judgment's impact on the Directorate of Enforcement's future actions.