9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, Nitin Mukherjee, Mamta Dangayach Ishwar Dutt, Umesh Chandra Batra, Ajay Prakesh Katiyar, Sampati Gupta, Umesh Prajapat, Prashant Khanna, Anurag Drolia, Archana Agarwal, Abhinav Bansal, Suman Chaturvedi, Jitendra Joshi, Renu Singh, Sarika Gaur, Sunil Bang, Vivek Gupta, Ashok Kumar Jain, Ajay Mandhana, Dr Anuj Jakhar Siyaram Sharma, Anish Kumar Gour, Ravi Bajaj, Amrish Joshi, Jayendra Chaturvedi, Omprakash Saraff, Jyoti Sharma, Radhey Shyam Mandhana, Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Heeru Gupta, Pushpa Goyal, Shashi Surekha, Syed Basharat Ali, Sameer Mathur, Vaibhav Chawla, Kuldeep Singh Choudhary, Divya Dinesh Trikha, Naman Mehta, Virendra Kedia, Neha Juneja, Brijesh Kumar Maheshwari, Seema Shah, Manoj Gupta, Gaurav Kukkar, Brijesh Choudhary, Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goyal, Adv., Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv., Ms. Mudita Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv., Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat, Adv.on behalf of Major R.P. Singh, AAG Order These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners mainly feeling aggrieved against the letter issued under Section 50(2)(3) and Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'), whereby the Additional Inspector General (Stamps & Registration), Jaipur was informed of not registering the documents relating to certain immovable properties, said to be belonging to one M/s Adarsh Credit Co-operative Societies Limited. Some of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have taken place, and as such, none of them has challenged the final attachment order passed under Section 8 of the Act of 2002 dated 31.03.2020 before this Court. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that if at all any petitioner has grievance in respect of the final attachment order, issued under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, present writ petition is not appropriate remedy and the remedy provided under the law i.e. the Act of 2002, can be exercised by any person, who is aggrieved against the order passed under Section 8 of the Act of 2002. Learned counsel-Mr. Nitin Jain appearing for the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 21522/2019 & 21523/2019, submitted that the petitioners have approached the Appellate Forum aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present bunch of petitions, the petitioners are feeling aggrieved against the letter as well as provisional attachment order which have been issued by the Authority. This Court, finds that after filing of writ petitions, the Authorities have passed order, under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, and as such, the final attachment order has been issued. This Court, finds that none of the petitioners have ever made any application in their petitions for amendment, and as such, this Court has to consider as whether these writ petitions can be heard by this Court in view of final attachment orders, which have already been passed by the Authorities on 31.03.2020. This Court, finds that the relief sought in the present writ petitions, cannot be gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
