9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte stay order dated 06.07.2023 passed by this Court and also perused the relevant record. 2. It appears from the record that instant writ petition has been filed by the Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement (for short "ED") under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "NCLT, Mumbai") passed in IA No.1850 of 2021 in CP(IB) No.1396 of 2020 titled as Mr. Anoop Jain Vs. M/s Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that a criminal motion came to be initiated under one FIR No. RCBD1/2016/E/0002 dated 07.03.2016 against one Mr. Bharat Bomb and other persons and they were also held accused of offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "PMLA, 2002"). In pursuance to such proceedings, by virtue of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002, as amended on 01.08.2019, movable and immovable properties of the accused persons were attached and in that process, the immovable property in the name of 'Royal-Raj Vila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for respondents, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises its jurisdiction of superintendence over all the Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories, in relation to which, the High Court exercises its jurisdiction and since the NCLT, Mumbai does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, therefore, the stay order dated 06.07.2023 passed by this Court, staying the operation of order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai and all further proceedings, in pursuance thereof, stands without jurisdiction as much as the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed at the threshold being not maintainable before this High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. 7. In counter to such preliminary objection, counsel for petitioner orally prayed that the indication in the subject matter of writ petition that same has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a bonafide and clerical mistake on their part and while seeking apology for the same, he humbly prayed to consider the instant writ petition within the scope and jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, therefore, on this count alone, the stay order deserves to be vacated forthwith. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents further pointed out that the order dated 24.02.2022 impugned herein was also put to challenge by one of the Ex Director of the respondent No.1 - Company before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by filing a Writ Petition No.11982/2023 and in that writ petition, ED was also impleaded as party respondent No.2. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 in presence of the counsel for ED particularly on the ground of not availing the remedy of statutory appeal against the order dated 24.02.2022, within the prescribed period of limitation and further, it was also observed that the NCLT, Mumbai passed the order dated 24.02.2022 within its powers and jurisdiction. It has also been informed that the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Bombay has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the SLPs No.23733-23734/ 2023 filed thereagainst, have been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2023. Hence, in that view of the matter, it has been prayed that the stay order dated 06.07.2023 passed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d factual matrix, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a pretext of non-impleading him as party before the NCLT, Mumbai nor petitioner can plead that he was not aware about the proceedings of the NCLT, Mumbai under the IB Code, rather it is a clear case where petitioner himself, knowingly and deliberately, did not opt to intervene in the matter during CIRP before the NCLT, Mumbai before passing of order dated 24.02.2022. Thus, taking the pretext of the violation of principles of natural justice by the petitioner, due to its nonimpleadment, is apparent misleading act and misconduct of petitioner. This has been done by the petitioner just with an ulterior motive, to take resort of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. According to respondent, petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts and such conduct of the petitioner does not hold him to be entitled to get any interim relief of equitable nature and therefore, the ex-parte stay order dated 06.07.2023 passed in favour of petitioner, is liable to be vacated immediately. 14. In addition to above, counsel for respondents submits on merits of case that the NCLT, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er other Acts including IB Code, 2016, therefore, the order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, to the extent of vacating the attachment orders, issued by the ED, is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction as much as the order has been passed behind the back of petitioner. Learned counsel contends that neither petitioner was impleaded nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 24.02.2022 by the NCLT. 17. Learned counsel submits that against the order of attachment, respondent No.1-Company itself has preferred an appeal before the PMLA Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA, where the Tribunal has passed status quo order dated 31.10.2019 but that order was not brought on record and knowledge of the NCLT, Mumbai, therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the NCLT, Mumbai to quash the attachment order of ED, itself is against the law and in clear violation to the order of status-quo dated 31.10.2019 passed by the PMLA Tribunal. 18. Learned counsel submits that when the NCLT, Mumbai lacks inherent powers to quash the attachment orders passed by the ED, yet it has been done, then in such eventuality, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent writ petition, yet he deliberately did not disclose before the High Court of Bombay about passing of the stay order dated 06.07.2023 by the Rajasthan High Court, staying the operation of the captioned order of NCLT, Mumbai dated 24.02.2022. 20. Counsel for petitioner further argued that as far as the order dated 27.07.2020 passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No.18091/2019 is concerned, such writ petition was filed by the Royal Rajvilas Flats Owners Association and while allowing withdrawal of the writ petition, a liberty was granted to Association to approach before the NCLT, Mumbai, whereas instead of Flat Owners Association, flat buyers approached NCLT, Mumbai and the proceedings under the IB Code, 2016 were initiated by the flat buyers in their personal names and moreover, ED was not made party in such proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai, hence, the petitioner was deprived from hearing. In this way, the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, behind back of the ED, is absolutely against the principles of natural justice, therefore, this Court has rightly stayed the operation of impugned order dated 24.02.2022, vide stay order dated 06.07.2023 and same is not liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d observations, the order dated 27.09.2023 was not put to challenge by the ED in any manner. It is not worthy that the SLPs No.23733-23734/ 2023 preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.10.2023. 23. Hence, this Court is of prima facie opinion that in the light of order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the High Court of Bombay, which is subsequent to the stay order dated 06.07.2023, the petitioner does not have any prima facie case now, to continue the stay order dated 06.07.2023, staying the operation of the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, on the ground of pendency of appeal of respondent No.1 before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal and the stay order passed therein. As far as oral statement of counsel for petitioner about filing of the review application before the High Court of Bombay seeking review of the order dated 27.09.2023 is concerned, same is of no advantage for the petitioner, at this stage, because at present the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Bombay is effective and operative in law. 24. Further, a perusal of stay order dated 06.07.2023 also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the NCLT, Mumbai and the order dated 24.02.2022 passed therein. Therefore, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that in such view of the undisputed factual matrix, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a pretext of non-imleading him as party before the NCLT, Mumbai, rather it is a case where petitioner, knowingly and deliberately, himself did not opt to intervene in the matter and CIRP pending before the NCLT, Mumbai. This Court finds that such factual matrix was not completely disclosed by the petitioner before this Court and at the time of obtaining the stay order dated 06.07.2023, an impression was given that the petitioner was at all not aware about the proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai whereas same is not true. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case in favour of petitioner is make out to assail the impugned order dated 24.02.2022 on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 26. This Court is also prima facie of the view that in view of above referred factual matrix which goes to show that petitioner was well aware of the proceedings and the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch to the maintainability and merits of the writ petition, hence, same shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
28. In view of the above discussions and reasons, in the opinion of this Court, stay order dated 06.07.2023 is liable to be vacated and hence, as a final conclusion, the stay order is hereby vacated. The application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India stands allowed and consequentially the stay application of petitioner is hereby dismissed.
29. Before parting with, it is made clear that the findings and observations made hereinabove are confined to deciding the application for vacation of stay order and the stay application and same would not prejudice the case of either of the party on merits.
30. Let the writ petition be listed for admission/ final disposal on 12.11.2024.
31. In the meanwhile, petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking to convert the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereunder presently the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
