9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority and it is represented by the above said Mathesh. We are dealing with a legal persona in the present case and it is enough if notice is issued to the company. The grievance of the petitioner that he did not personally know about this case is a matter to be resolved with Mathesh, who had received money from the petitioner enabling the petitioner to acquire the company. Hence, we are not satisfied with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Madura Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was never put on notice by the Adjudicating Authority while confirming the provisional attachment order. In any event, we cannot get into this factual issue for the first time while dealing with this writ petition and such factual disputes c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation order passed by the second respondent u/s.8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as PMLA ] dated 22.12.2021, confirming the provisional attachment order passed by the first respondent u/s.5(1) of PMLA, dated 12.01.2021. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the company named as Madura Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was established in the year 2013 and one Mathesh and Ananthapandiyan were the Directors of the said company. In the year 2015, the petitioner claims to have acquired the said company and had paid a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- towards the same to the said Mathesh. The further case of the petitioner is that he had availed financial assistance from the Punjab National Bank by mortgaging his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to buttress his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: (a) Hiren Panchal and another v. Union of India and others [CDJ 2022 Cal HC 307]; (b)Vikas WSP Ltd. and others v. Directorate Enforcement and another [2020 OnLine Del 1732] 6. Per contra , the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy u/s.26 of the PMLA wherein the petitioner can file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the Adjudication Order passed by the second respondent. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the company viz ., Madura Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case and it is enough if notice is issued to the company. The grievance of the petitioner that he did not personally know about this case is a matter to be resolved with Mathesh, who had received money from the petitioner enabling the petitioner to acquire the company. Hence, we are not satisfied with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Madura Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was never put on notice by the Adjudicating Authority while confirming the provisional attachment order. In any event, we cannot get into this factual issue for the first time while dealing with this writ petition and such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. 9. The second issue that was raised by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e jurisdiction to pass the confirmation order beyond 180 days. On carefully going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, we find that the issue on hand was never dealt with by the Delhi High Court and the same is clear from paragraph No.38 of the order, which is extracted hereunder: 38. In the present case I have intentionally refrained myself from making any comment on whether the period of total lockdown declared by the Central Government, that is from 24.03.2020 to 20.04.2020, can be excluded for computation of the 180 days, as it is not disputed that even on exclusion of this period, the 180 days would have expired on 16.06.2020, the returnable date of the notice issued by the Adjudicating Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng supra is also supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [(2022) 5 SCC 112]. The Apex Court has explained the scope of the order passed in S.Kasi case and has categorically held that the same cannot be applied in a matter involving proceedings before a Court. The second respondent was exercising a quasi-judicial function and the ratio in S.Kasi case cannot be applied to such a quasi-judicial authority. In any case, we keep this issue open to enable the petitioner to agitate the same before the Appellate Tribunal. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed and liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal u/s.26 of the PMLA and work out his remedy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
