9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub- Section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA). [3] The prayer is reproduced as : "(i) To admit this petition; (ii) Call for records of the case; (iii) issue rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order/notice dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Imphal Sub-Zonal Office, i/c with ECIR/GWZO/01/2019/60 and all the consequent actions in pursuance of the notice shall not be set aside and quashed by declaring the same as illegal and unconstitutional; (iv) Defreeze the petitioner's bank accounts which was freezed by the respondent authority by setting aside the impugned notice dated 07.03.2024; (v) pass any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.03.2024 of attaching three bank accounts of the petitioner mentioned at serial Nos. 5, 6 & 10 in terms of Section 5 of PMLA giving liberty to challenge the order dated 07.03.2024. [6] Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the scheme of PMLA whereas the authority can initiate three actions i.e. attachment under Section 5 of the Act, seizure of the document of the property or freezing of the bank accounts under Sections 17 or 18 of the Act. Once the authority exercises one of the options available under Section 5, 17 or 18 and attains finality, the authority cannot resort to the remaining options as the same will amount to abuse of process of law. It is pointed out that the impugned provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 226 is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel relies on the decisions reported as (2010) 14 SCC 38 and (2025) SCC OnLine SC 556. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with exemplary cost for not disclosing all relevant facts. [9] This Court has perused the materials on record, the provisions of the Act and the submissions made at the bar. [10] In the earlier notice dated 25.11.2021 issued by the respondent, 10 bank accounts of the petitioner were proposed to be frozen and the notice dated 25.11.2021 was held by this Court as illegal vide order dated 08.02.2024 in WP(C) No. 02 of 2022 and the accounts were directed to be defreezed within two months. [11] By the impugned provisional order dated 07.03.2024, the ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
