9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Bombay would ordinarily have jurisdiction to hear appeal against decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 25th July, 2024. In M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. [ 2022 (6) TMI 1360 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], the Court diverged from the precedent set in Aasma Mohammed Farooq, focusing on the specific circumstances of the cases before and overruled objection of maintainability of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner is assailing the order of the Appellate Tribunal. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court based on the presence of the Appellate Authority within its geographical bounds. This fact, while establishing a basic criterion for territorial jurisdiction, does not inherently justify overlooking the structured remedies provided under statutory law. The legal framework provided by Section 42 of the PMLA specifies that appeals against decisions of the Appellate Tribunal are to be filed at the High Court within the jurisdiction where the aggrieved party resides or conducts business. The Petitioner cannot override the statutory mechanism by relying on the geographical location of the Appellate Authority within this Court s jurisdiction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y platform known as Instarem Masspay. 2. On 23rd-24th February, 2024, during the investigation under ECIR/KCZO/06/2024[ ECIR ], Respondent No. 2 Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement authorised a search at the office premises of Petitioner under Section 17 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [ the PMLA ]. This operation culminated in an order dated 24th February, 2024 directing freezing of nine bank accounts of Petitioner under section 17 (1-A) of the PMLA. Following the search, Respondent No. 2 filed an Original Application with Adjudicating Authority Respondent No. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice [ SCN ] dated 4th April, 2024, along with copy of reasons to believe that outline the grounds for enforcement under section 8 of the PMLA. The Petitioner contends that the full set of Relied Upon Documents [ RUD ] and the detailed reasons to believe justifying the search under Section 17 (1) of the Act were not initially provided, which led to multiple requests for these documents addressed to Respondents No. 2 and 3. It was not until 3rd May 2024 that the Petitioner was granted access to the Original Application and the RUD. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 30th July, 2024, in the Original Application, to prevent proceeding without resolution of the outstanding appeals. However, the Petitioner received no response to this request, further impeding their ability to prepare and present their case adequately. 4. The Petitioner then preferred an urgent listing application, which was mentioned before the Appellate Tribunal on 23rd July, 2024 and accordingly, the appeal and the stay application were heard on 25th July, 2024. Petitioner asserts that the Appellate Tribunal refused to grant stay, as prayed by Petitioner and adjourned the matter for hearing to 21st November, 2024. It is asserted that till date, copy of the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 25th July, 2024 has not been provided to them. Petitioner has applied for inspection of the records of Appellate Tribunal, however, that request has also not been acceded to. 5. In the above circumstances, Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, argue that that lack of documentation seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the contention urged on the maintainability of the present petition, Mr. Aggarwal argues that Respondents argument regarding the non-maintainability of the writ petition is misplaced. He challenges the assertion that the availability of an alternative remedy inherently precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Aggarwal cites precedents where this Court has indeed entertained writ petitions despite the availability of statutory appellate remedies. They refer to order dated 02nd June, 2022 passed in M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement W.P.(C) 6354/2022. Further bolstering this argument, Mr. Luthra refers to the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2021) 6 SCC 771 which elucidates circumstances under which courts may intervene despite the existence of alternative remedies. Both Mr. Luthra as well as Mr. Aggarwal argue that in cases where fundamental rights are at stake or where there are significant legal flaws in the administrative or tribunal proceedings, the courts have not only the authority but also the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of law or fact arising out of such order. For the purpose of this Section, High Court has been defined to be the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The Petitioner is based in Mumbai, conducting business and presumably working for gain there. Consequently, based on the explicit language of Section 42, the High Court of Bombay would ordinarily have jurisdiction to hear appeal against decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 25th July, 2024. 12. The situation which emerges in the present case was also considered, in Aasma Mohammed Farooq (Supra), which is evident from the following portion of the judgment: 10. Mr. Chaudhri may be right in contending that the notice under Section 8 of the Act has been issued by the Authority in Delhi, so jurisdiction is there for this Court to entertain the writ petition. But merely because a part of cause of action has arisen under the jurisdiction of this Court, whether this Court needs to exercise its jurisdiction is the question need to be answered. This Court is of the view that it should not , for more than one reason; that it is not in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterim protection, that has been granted by the High Court of Delhi till 15.12.2018, will continue for one more month from today so that the petitioners may approach the High Court of Bombay and ask for interim relief. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications stand disposed of 14. The factual scenario in the instant case parallels the Aasma Mohammed Farooq case in some ways. The Petitioner in the present case is also based in Mumbai. However, the present challenge is directed against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, for which a statutory appeal pathway is explicitly outlined in Section 42 of the PMLA, suggesting that the Bombay High Court would be the appropriate forum for such an appeal. 15. That said, the Court must also consider the order dated 02nd June, 2022 passed in M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. (Supra) wherein the preliminary objection raised by Directorate of Enforcement relating to maintainability of the writ petition, premised on the decision of the Division Bench in Aasma Mohammed Farooq (Supra), was rejected. 16. In M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. (Supra), the Court diverged from the precedent set in Aasma Mohammed Farooq, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 above, the challenge was directly against the authority of the Adjudicating Authority to proceed under Section 8 of the PMLA after a lapse of 180 days since the issuance of the provisional order of attachment. The direct challenge to the authority s jurisdiction, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, highlighted a substantive legal question that warranted immediate judicial review. 18. Before us, the Petitioner is assailing the order of the Appellate Tribunal. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court based on the presence of the Appellate Authority within its geographical bounds. This fact, while establishing a basic criterion for territorial jurisdiction, does not inherently justify overlooking the structured remedies provided under statutory law. The legal framework provided by Section 42 of the PMLA specifies that appeals against decisions of the Appellate Tribunal are to be filed at the High Court within the jurisdiction where the aggrieved party resides or conducts business. The Petitioner cannot override the statutory mechanism by relying on the geographical location of the Appellate Authority within this Court s jurisdiction. There is no basis for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
