The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order confirming provisional attachment of property under the PMLA. The court held that alternative efficacious remedy exists via appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file appeal before Appellate Tribunal under Section 26(1) of PMLA, 2002.
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.
Megha 11_wp_1220_2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1220 OF 2015
Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. …Petitioners Versus The Deputy Director and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Aditya Pimple with Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Mr. Alok Mishra i/b. M/s. T.N. Tripathi and Co. for the Petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Shashank Trivedi i/b. M/s. Naik Naik and Co. for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. P.R. Yadav for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.A. Garge for the Respondent No.4-Union of India.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED: 13th AUGUST, 2018.
P.C.:-
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties.
2015 passed under sub-section (5) to sub-section (7) of section 8 or
section 58B or sub section 2A of section 60 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. By the said order the Adjudicating Authority confirmed provisional attachment order dated 21st August, 2014 passed
by the Respondent No.1 in respect of the property belonging to the
Megha
1/4
Megha 11_wp_1220_2015.doc
Respondent No.3.
Megha
2/4
Megha 11_wp_1220_2015.doc
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It has also been brought to our notice that the Respondent No.3 has already filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Megha
3/4
Megha 11_wp_1220_2015.doc
dated 20th April, 2018 shall remain in operation for a
period of four weeks from today.
(vi) Since the Petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before this Court, the Appellate Tribunal shall condone the delay and decide the said appeal of the Petitioners on its own merits.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Megha Digitally signedby Megha Shridhar Shridhar Parab Date: 2018.08.28 Parab 14:32:13 +0530
Megha
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order by the Adjudicating Authority confirming provisional attachment of property.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Indian Overseas Bank
Punjab National Bank
The Deputy Director
Respondent No.3
Union of India
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
