9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion gap. We are of the view that necessary steps should be taken immediately so that it should not happen in future as the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to respect the orders of Higher Courts. In the present case, there is no valid explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondent as to why the order of the High Court was not given due respect except the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Department may challenge the order passed by the Madras High Court or the respondent might not be aware. At present there is no impediment not to accept the judgment of the Higher Court i.e. Chennai High Court where the proceedings of Section 5 (Provisional Attachment Order) have been quashed. Thus the att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1988 is a scheduled offence under PMLA as on the date of registering the ECIR. 5. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai went before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on 27.04.2017 against Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta and three others of Chennai subsequent to passing of a provisional attachment order (PAO) No.09/2017. By virtue of the said provisional order, various properties were attached. 6. The petitioner filed the criminal petition under Section 482 of CRPC before the High Court of Judiciary at Chennai to quash the provisional attachment order dated 09.04.2017. 7. The Respondents were duly represented by the public prosecutor. which has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikely to be transferred or disposal. In the absence of any sufficient reason, arriving to such conclusion by mere reproducing the words reason to believe , it cannot be stated that the order has been passed! After considering the entire gamut of materials. Admittedly, in this case, entire documents are available and the properties are in the custody of the court. Therefore, the order of attachment is not maintainable. 15. In view of the above, the Provisional Attachment Order No. 09/2017 dated 07.04.2017 in ECIR/CEZO/08/2015 and the Original Complain in O.C. NO. 855 of 2017 are quashed. The point is answered accordingly. 8. The final order by the Madras High Court was reserved on 13.06.2017 and the same was rendered on 13.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame quashing of the provisional attachment order, the same was confirmed which is apparently in violation of the order passed by the Chennai High Court. 12. For the afore said reasons, we are of the view that it is a serious matter that once the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement were party before the Writ Petition where the quashing orders were passed and were aware of the proceedings, the impugned order has been passed contrary to the judgment given by the Madras High Court stated to be on account of some communication gap. We are of the view that necessary steps should be taken immediately so that it should not happen in future as the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to respect the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
