In this writ appeal, the High Court disposed of the matter without any order as costs. The Court observed that the appellants challenge to the freeze of bank accounts under Section 17 of the PMLA is pending in a separate writ petition, rendering the current appeal infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
J ! I
! > J
■J
i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATk (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE H
J
present
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 315 OF 2023
Writ Appeal under Ciause .15 of the. Letters Patent Against Order made in W.P No. 36939 of 2022, Dated 07-03-2023 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunistances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation Judgement dated 07-03-2023 in WP No. 36939 of 2022 to the extent of "the terms in Para No. 36 (ii) to (iv)". i.e. (ii) It shall be open to the authorized officer of E.D under Section 17 of the PMLA to take necessary
y
!
action, by. proceeding in accordance with law. (iii) for a period of 15 days from today, there shall be no debit transaction from the accounts of the petitioners in question with the respondent Nos.3 to 4 Bank and (iv) the above direction of no debit transaction from the petitioners accounts in question for a period of 15 days shall abide by the orders passed by the authorized officer under bection 17, if any, by permitting the petitioners to operate the bank accounts pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondents 1&2: SRI JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO. SC FOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
| Counsel for the Respondent 3: SRI D.V.S. LOKESWARA RAO |
|---|
Counsel for the Respondent 4: SRI G. SUDHEER KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER
f I I
s;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
M/s. C. Gopal Reddy & Co., rep. By Its Managing Partner Mr. Chavva Gopal l^eddy, R/o. Road No.2, Sanjeev Nagar, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh - 515411, and others
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 3"* Floor, Shakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004, and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT fORAU
(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.36939 of 2022 and issuing directions to freeze the bank accounts of the writ petitioners/appellants for a period of 15 days and, further, to abide by the order passed by the authorized officer under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA, 2002").
2. The writ petitioners have challenged the e-mails dated 18.10,2022 issued by the 2"'* respondent-Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office, Hyderabad, to
I. Il 'l I Ilf**
****
2 Ha & NJS,J W.A.No.315 of2023
r
the 3"* respondent and 4*” respondents, viz., Axis Bank Ltd., Tadipatri Branch and Union Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad, respectively. requesting them to furnish the balance held in the accounts maintained in those banks by the writ petitioners/fixed deposits with further request not to entertain debit transactions from the said accounts until further directions from the office of the Enforcement Directorate, informing that the Directorate of Enforcement was investigating a case against the subject entity and others under the PMLA, 2002.
"36. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:-
i) The impugned Emails annexed as Exs.Pl and P3 are hereby quashed.
ii) It shall be open to the authorized officer of E.D under Section 17 of the PMLA to take necessary action, by proceeding in accordance with law.
. I
HCJ & NJS,J 3 W.A.No.315 of2023
Hi) For a period of 15 days from today, there shail be no debit . transaction from the accounts of the petitioners in question with the respondent Nos. 3 to 4 Bank.
iv) The above direction of no debit transaction from the petitioners" accounts in. question for a period of 15 days, shaii abide by the orders passed by the authorized officer under Section 17, if any."
5, At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners would submit that the authorized officer has passed an order, as If the learned single Judge under the impugned order directed to freeze the bank accounts of the writ petitioners, which is under, challenge in a separate writ petition. It is submitted that when the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners afresh would be heard, directions issued in the impugned order in paragraph 36.3 and 36.4, may come in the way of the writ petitioners in seeking relief from this Court.
4 . Ha & NJS,J W.A.No.315 of2023
the same is under challenge in a separate writ petition, we observe that the directions issued by. the learned single Judge, to the effect that there shall be no debit transaction from the accounts of the writ petitioners with the 3^ and 4“^ respondents for a period of 15 days there-from, were as part of interim arrangement till the authorized officer passed an order under Section 17/17(1-A) of the PMI_A, 2002, In accordance with law and there were no directions to pass such order freezing the bank accounts of the writ petitioners.
7. Accordingly, it is observed that in all further proceedings including the writ petition preferred afresh by the writ petitioners challenging the order passed by the authorized officer under Section 17/17(1-A) of the PMI_A, 2002, the Impugned order passed by the learned single. Judge shall have no bearing and the competent authority shall decide the writ petitioners' challenge to the said proceedings independently, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations In the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.
8. Subject to the above, writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to
costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
To,
Sd/-VDIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
MSR
HIGH COURT
DATED;20/04/2023
ORDER
WA.No.315 of 2023
I 12 SEP 2023C I
-
VO
dlr^
OISPOSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal is maintainable when the interim directions have rendered the matter infructuous due to subsequent order by the authorized officer.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. C. Gopal Reddy & Co., Rep. by Mr. Chavva Gopal Reddy
Sri C. Gopal Reddy
Mr. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
Mrs. Chavva Lakshmi Devi
Directorate of Enforcement
Axis Bank Ltd.
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
