9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. This need was felt throughout the world, owing to the serious threat to the financial systems of the countries, including their integrity and sovereignty because of money-laundering. Notably, before coming into force of the Act of 2002, various other legislations including the Act of 1988 were already invoked to deal with attachment and confiscation/forfeiture of the proceeds of crime linked to concerned offences. The inclusion of various offences in Part-A, Part-B, Part-C of the Schedule to the Act of 2002 brings any criminal activity in relation to the Scheduled Offence or relatable to the Scheduled Offence within the fold of the Act of 2002. At the cost of repetition, it reiterated that the process or activity as clarified in the Explanation to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person if he is involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime - the reasons to believe in the instant case having referred to the provisional attachment order makes it clear that the said reasons to believe which were recorded in writing was done subsequent to the impugned provisional attachment order. Under such circumstances, it was a clear infraction to the provision of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 as well as the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. The reasons to believe so recorded by the Respondent No.2 mentioned that if the properties were left unattached, they are likely to be transferred, disposed of, parted with or otherwise dealt with in any manner prejudicial to the purpose of investigation carried out under the provisions of the Act of 2002. As already stated, there was no mention of the materials in possession on the basis of which the said belief was formed. It is apposite to observe that merely reiterating the language of the statute sans without recording the basis on what materials, the belief was formed in writing, would not be in consonance with the provisions of Section 5(1) as well as the second proviso to Section 5(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruption, Assam against the Petitioner No.1 on the basis of a complaint regarding accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Upon completion of enquiry, it revealed that the estimated disproportionate assets acquired/possessed by the Petitioner No.1 was to the tune of Rs. 1,42,59,064/-. Upon receipt of the said First Information Report dated 12.02.2018, the Officer-in-Charge, ACB Police Station cum Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Anti-Corruption, Assam registered a case being ACB Police Station Case No.02/2018 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act of 1988 ) and started the investigation of the case. Taking into account that the provisions of Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 were Scheduled Offences under Paragraph No.8 of Part-A of the Act of 2002, ECIR No.01/GWZO/2018 dated 12.02.2018 was recorded and the investigation against the Petitioner No.1 was initiated under the Act of 2002. 5. From the averments made in the writ petition, it reveals that during the investigation made under the provisions of the Act of 2002, the details of the properties held by both the Petitioners and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above, it was the case of the Petitioners that a perusal of the Schedule attached to the impugned order would show that three properties have been attached and out of the three properties, one property admittedly is a property acquired by the Petitioner No.1 on 06.03.1997 on which date, the Act of 2002 was not even enacted. It is also the case of the Petitioners that various provisions of the Act of 1988 were included as Scheduled Offences in Part-B by the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 which came into operation from 01.06.2009. Further to that, the entire Part-B was deleted in 2013 and the provisions of the Act of 1988 were included in Part-A of the Schedule to the Act of 2002. Therefore, it was the specific case of the Petitioners that as the property acquired vide Deed of Sale dated 06.03.1997 is much prior to the insertion of the offence under the Act of 1988 as part of the Scheduled Offence, the said impugned order is required to be set aside as the same clearly shows non-application of mind. 8. Primarily on the above basis, the instant writ petition was filed on 19.08.2020. This Court vide an order dated 10.09.2020 had issued notice and in the interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secuted for alleged offences, as the offences were not scheduled offences under the Act of 2002 till 01.06.2009. It was also mentioned in the said affidavit-in-reply that the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Guwahati Zonal Office had filed a complaint under Sections 44 and 45(1) of the Act of 2002 before the Court of the Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati against the Petitioners on 18.01.2022 and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2022 in ECIR No.01/GWZO/2018 subsequently registered as Special (PMLA) Case No.01/2022, after perusal of the materials on the complaint, took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Act of 2002 against both the Petitioners and the said case is presently pending before the learned Trial Court for consideration of charge. It was also stated that as regards the Schedule Offence , no charge sheet has been filed and it is still at the stage of investigation. 12. It is further seen from the records that the Petitioners have filed an additional affidavit to bring to the notice of this Court that the notice to show cause has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Act of 2002 on the basis of the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve for exercise of jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 is required to be recorded only which have been duly done and as such the question of the condition precedent being not there as alleged does not arise. During the course of hearing, the learned Deputy S.G.I. duly produced the records to show that the reasons on which the belief was formed was duly recorded in writing. Further to that, the learned Deputy S.G.I. submitted that the expression proceed of crime as defined in Section 2(1)(u) of the Act of 2002 includes any property created out of the proceeds of a Scheduled Offence which also includes the value of such property and as per the interpretation given by the learned Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Vs. Axis Bank and Others reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7854 , a property acquired prior to the enactment of the Act of 2002 can also be included within the purview of the definition of the proceed of crime . In that regard, he referred to paragraph Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of the said judgment. 14. In the backdrop of the pleadings, the following points of determination ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not availed. It was further observed that where a controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of facts but only question of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 of the said judgment in the case of Godrej Sara Lee (supra) being relevant are reproduced herein under: 4 . Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high Courts holding writ petitions as not maintainable merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to Article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper. 5 . A little after the dawn of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1958 SCR 595 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Nooh) had the occasion to observe as follows: 10. In the next place it must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. 17. From the above quoted proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court, it would show that maintainability and entertainability are two separate and distinct concepts. While maintainability strikes at the root of the jurisdiction of the judicial forum to deal with the matter whereas entertainability relates to the judicial fora having the jurisdiction but on account of the discretion conferred upon it, the judicial fora may or may not in the given facts entertain the lis. There is no quarrel with the proposition that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has the jurisdiction in the present facts and as such the question of maintainability of writ petition does not arise. However, the question arises as to whether this Court in its discretion should entertain the writ petition. The issue involved in the present proceedings as to whether a property purchased prior to coming into effect of the Act of 2002 could be brought within the ambit of the definition proceeds of crime as defined in Section 2(1)(u) of the Act of 2002 is a purely legal issue, which in the opinion of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal with the menace of the money-laundering of the proceeds of crime having transnational consequences and on the financial systems of the countries. It is seen that the said Act of 2002 was passed by both the Houses of the Parliament and received the Presidential assent on 17.01.2003 however, the same was brought into force w.e.f. 01.07.2005. 19. The broad framework of the Act of 2002 is that it consist of 10 (ten) chapters. Chapter-I deals with the Short title, extent and commencement and definitions; Chapter-II deals with the Offence of Money-Laundering; Chapter-III deals with the mechanism of Attachment, Adjudication and Confiscation; Chapter-IV deals with the Obligations of the Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and Intermediaries; Chapter-V is in respect of Steps and Safeguards for issuing summons, carrying out searches and seizures including power to arrest, presumptions and burden of proof; Chapter-VI deals with matters concerning Appellate Tribunal; Chapter-VII deals with matters concerning Special Courts; Chapter-VIII is regarding the authorities under the Act of 2002 and their jurisdictional powers; Chapter-IX deals with the Reciprocal Arrangement for Assistance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever] 23. Section 3 of the Act of 2002 would show that the said provision addresses itself to three things i.e. (i) Person; (ii) Process or activity; and (iii) Product. Insofar as person(s) covered by Section 3 of the Act of 2002 are concerned, they would be - (i) Those who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge; or (ii) Those who knowingly assists; or (iii) Those who are knowingly a party; or (iv) Those who are actually involved. On the second aspect i.e. process or activity , it would be seen that Section 3 of the Act of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment carried out vide the Finance Act, 2015, the term proceeds of crime was enlarged to include any property equivalent in value held within the country if such property is taken or held outside the country. By the amendment made vide Act 13 of 2018, the words or abroad was added thereby any property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad would come within the ambit of proceeds of crime, if a property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of a criminal activity related to a scheduled offence is held or taken out of the country. By the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, an Explanation was added which on the face of it seems to be clarificatory in nature. In terms with the said Explanation, the term proceeds of crime would include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the Scheduled Offence. 26. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 explained the term proceeds of crime at paragraph Nos. 251 to 253 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation added in 2019 to the definition of expression proceeds of crime , it would inevitably include other property which may not have been derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. As noticed from the definition, it essentially refers to any property including abroad derived or obtained directly or indirectly. The Explanation added in 2019 in no way travels beyond that intent of tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore, the Explanation is in the nature of clarification and not to increase the width of the main definition proceeds of crime . The definition of property also contains Explanation which is for the removal of doubts and to clarify that the term property includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under the 2002 Act or any of the scheduled offences. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have already noted that every crime property need not be termed as proceeds of crime but the converse may be true. Additionally, some other property is purchased or derived from the proceeds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy dealing with that offence cannot be wholly or partly regarded as a proceeds of crime so long as the whole or some portion of the property has been derived or obtained by any person as a result of criminal activity relatable to the Scheduled Offence. Therefore, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence. The Supreme Court had also dealt with how a property obtained indirectly would come within the ambit of the expression proceeds of crime and observed such property derived or obtained from the sale proceeds or in a given case in lieu of or exchange of the property directly derived or obtained as a result of a criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence. The Supreme Court further observed that it only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. 28. Expanding further, on the basis of the definition of proceeds of crime , it would show that the term encompasses three types of properties. (i) Those property/properties which is/are derived or obtained, directly or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the language so employed in Section 3, it would show that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of a criminal activity relating to or relatable to a Scheduled Offence. The inclusion of various offences in Part-A, Part-B, Part-C of the Schedule to the Act of 2002 brings any criminal activity in relation to the Scheduled Offence or relatable to the Scheduled Offence within the fold of the Act of 2002. At the cost of repetition, it reiterated that the process or activity as clarified in the Explanation to Section 3 of the Act of 2002 includes concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property. Further to that, this process or activity would be a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by any of the activities aforementioned. Therefore, the involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute the offence of money-laundering. The offence of money-laundering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all. 296 . Be it noted that the attachment must be only in respect of property which appears to be proceeds of crime and not all the properties belonging to concerned person who would eventually face the action of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was attached. No doubt, various offences under the Act of 1988 were brought within the fold of the Scheduled Offences w.e.f 01.06.2009 but the moment, the Act of 1988 and more particularly those provisions of the Act of 1988 were brought within the ambit of the Act of 2002, any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly as a result of the criminal activity in relation to the Act of 1988 would become proceeds of crime. The question whether it would amount to money-laundering or not would be dependent upon process or activity as regards the proceeds of crime. This aspect of the matter is very clear from a reading of Paragraph Nos. 270 and 296 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which have been quoted hereinabove. Therefore, the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the impugned order including the property acquired vide the Deed of Sale dated 06.03.1997 would come within the fold of proceeds of crime provided the property/properties are derived or obtained directly or indirectly by the Petitioners as a result of a criminal activity relating to or relatable to a Scheduled Offence. It is also observed that in the circumstances, the Authorized Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country. In other words, filing of a police report or a complaint before a Magistrate or Court in relation to the Scheduled Offence had been a pre-condition for issuing an order of provisional attachment as per the first proviso. The second proviso stipulates that the Authorized Officer has to record satisfaction and reasons for his belief in writing on the basis of materials in his possession that the property (proceeds of crime) involved in money-laundering if not attached immediately would frustrate the proceedings under the Act of 2002. Normally, an order of provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 can be passed on filing of police report or private complaint in relation to a Scheduled Offence. However, vide the second proviso, the Authorized Officer is empowered to act even without fulfilling the requirement under the first proviso provided he records his satisfaction and reasons to believe in writing on the basis of the materials in his possession that if the property (proceeds of crime) involved in money-laundering is not attached i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence but would also apply to any person if he is involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. Such a person besides facing the consequence of a provisional attachment order, may end up being named as accused in the complaint to be filed by the Authorized Officer concerning offences under Section 3 of the Act of 2002. 37. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the term reasons to believe . The said term came up for consideration in the context of Act of 2002 in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Director of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and it was observed that the said term reasons for believe having not been defined in the Act of 2002, the expression reasons to believe as defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code was taken into consideration. It was observed that a person is said to have reasons to believe a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. It was observed that the specified officer therefore must have reasons to believe on the basis of the materials in his possession that the property sought to be attached is likely to be concealed, transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court categorically dealt with this specific question of furnishing of the reasons in the context of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Paragraph No.4 of the said judgment of the said case is reproduced herein below: 4. It was also contended for the appellant that the Income Tax Officer should have communicated to him the reasons which led him to initiate the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. It was stated that a request to this effect was made by the appellant to the Income Tax Officer, but the Income Tax Officer declined to disclose the reasons. In our opinion, the argument of the appellant on this point is misconceived. The proceedings for assessment or re-assessment under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act start with the issue of a notice and it is only after the service of the notice that the assessee, whose income in sought to be assessed or re-assessed, becomes a party to those proceedings. The earlier stage of the proceeding for recording the reasons of the Income Tax Officer and for obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner are administrative in character and are not quasi judicial. The scheme of Section 34 of the Act is that, if the conditions of the main se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Person , product and proceed . Merely, the Respondent No.2 came to an opinion that the property to be attached were proceeds of crime. This in the opinion of this Court do not satisfy the requirement of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. 41. A further analysis of the reasons to believe which was placed before this Court shows that the Respondent No.2 ordered provisional attachment of the immovable properties valued at Rs. 1,48,71,198/- as detailed in the table under Paragraph No.20 of the provisional attachment order for a period of 180 days. This aspect of the matter therefore makes it very clear that the said reasons to believe was recorded subsequent to the provisional attachment order being made. However, if this Court takes note of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 as well as the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002, it would show that the reasons to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) is a precondition for issuance of a provisional attachment order. If that be so, the reasons to believe in the instant case having referred to the provisional attachment order makes it clear that the said reasons to believe which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to first apply his mind to the materials on record before recording in writing his reasons to believe is certainly a sufficient safeguard to the invocation of the powers under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the 2002 Act. (ii) There has to be a satisfaction that if the property involved in money-laundering or proceeds of crime are not attached immediately , such non-attachment might frustrate the confiscation proceedings under the 2002 Act. (iii) ...... 44. This Court also finds it relevant to refer to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the main provision of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 categorically observed that for formation of the opinion which is required to be recorded in writing, the same has to be on the basis of the materials in the possession of the authorized officer that (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter III. Paragraph No. 28 of the said j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writing, would not be in consonance with the provisions of Section 5(1) as well as the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the condition precedent being not satisfied, the Respondent No.2 could not have issued the impugned order under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 or even under the less stringent Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. Consequently, the impugned order is contrary to Section 5(1) as well as also to the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 for which the said impugned order is required to be interfered with. 46. In view of the above determination as this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is required to be interfered with, the consequential effect thereof would be that the adjudication proceedings so initiated on the basis of the complaint filed under Section 5(5) of the Act of 2002 has also to fail inasmuch as without there being a valid provisional attachment order, the adjudicating authority does not get jurisdiction to exercise its powers in terms with Section 8 of the Act of 2002. 47. In the backdrop of the above discussions and analysis, this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. The date of acquisition of the property being prior to the enactment of the Act of 2002 or the Act of 1988 being made a Scheduled Offence w.e.f 01.06.2009 has therefore no relevance. What is relevant is when the Officer empowered under the Act of 2002 is taking up the matter, he has to form an opinion as to whether the property/properties were derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by a person as a result of a criminal activity relating to or relatable to a Scheduled Offence. (E) The contention of the Petitioners that the property acquired vide the Deed of Sale dated 06.03.1997 could not have been brought within the fold of proceeds of crime is totally misconceived and fallacious. (F) In order to exercise the powers under Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002, the twin conditions laid down has to be satisfied i.e. any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime and such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter-III. This satisfaction has to be arrived at on the basis of materials in possession and the same has to be reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson whose property is provisionally attached as well as there is no requirement that such reasons has to be a part of the provisional attachment order, for the reasons already discussed in the judgment. (J) The impugned order so passed is contrary to the requirements of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 as well as the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 for which the impugned order is set aside and quashed. (K) The consequences of setting aside the impugned order is that the adjudication proceedings so initiated on the basis of the Show Cause notice dated 07.08.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority has also to be set aside and quashed as the Adjudicating Authority gets the jurisdiction only on the basis of an existing Provisional Attachment Order, which this Court had set aside and quashed. (L) The decision herein to set aside the impugned order as well as the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority shall not act as a bar to exercise jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act of 2002 by the Respondents by following the mandate of law and more specifically the provisions of the Act of 2002. (M) The interim order so passed on 24.11.2020 in I.A.(Civil) No.1813/2020, no lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
