Disposed

Sri K Rangaswamy S/O Late Krishnappa v. Joint Director

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2016WP/16004/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging eviction notices under the PML Act. The court held that disputed factual issues regarding property attachment values should be addressed by the Appellate Tribunal, noting that an appeal was already pending.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of. Petitioners are advised to approach the Appellate Tribunal.

Sri K Rangaswamy S/O Late Krishnappa Vs Joint Director — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.16004-16006 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. K. Rangaswamy, Son of Late Krishnappa, Aged 71 years, Resident of No.12, Ganigara “A” Lane, Sunkalpet Cross, Bangalore – 560 002.

¶9

Sri. R. Mohan Kumar, Son of Sri. K. Rangaswamy, Age: 43 years, Resident of No.12, Ganigara “A” Lane, Sunkalpet Cross, Bangalore – 560 002.

¶10

Sri. M. Keshavamurthy, Son of Late Sri. M. Mahalingaiah, Aged about 45 years, Resident of No.12/13, 3^rd Cross, Cubbonpet,

Bangalore – 560 002.

…PETITIONERS

(By Shri G.A.K. Gowda, Advocate)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Joint Director,

¶17

Directorate of Enforcement,

¶18

Bangalore Zonal Office,

¶19

9/1, State Bank Road,

¶20

Bangalore – 560 001.

¶21

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,

¶22

Bangalore Zonal Office, 3^rd Floor, ‘B’ Block,

¶23

BMTC-TTMC Building,

¶24

K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,

¶25

Bangalore – 560 027.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(By Shri Prabuling K. Navadgi, A.S.G., for Shri S. Mahesh, Advocate)

¶28

¶29

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice of eviction passed dated 28.3.2013 for taking possession under Sub-Section (4) of Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Act No.15 of 2003) issued by the second respondent to the petitioners 1 to 3 vide Annexures- A, B and C respectively.

¶30

These Writ Petitions coming on for Further Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶31

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Prabhuling K Navadagi, appearing for the counsel for the respondents.

¶34

The primary contention of the petitioners is that

¶35

provisional attachments have been made in respect of immovable properties as well as monies, which the petitioners held. The respondents have also taken possession of the bank accounts, notwithstanding an order of stay granted by this court being in operation. It is further pointed out that the alleged proceeds of crime are valued at Rs.2.25 crore. The value of the immovable properties under attachment exceeds that amount and would sufficiently provide the security for due recovery of any such alleged proceeds of crime. The attachment of other bank accounts and valuables in addition to the immovable property results in the respondents over-reaching and especially

¶36

¶37

since that has been done during the currency of an order of stay of this court.

¶38

It is however pointed out by the learned Additional

¶39

Solicitor General Shri Prabhuling K Navadagi that particulars of the claims now set up by the petitioners would be addressed

¶40

by the Appellate Tribunal, where the petitioners are also prosecuting an appeal and if an appropriate application is made, furnishing the details of the value of the bank accounts and immovable properties that are under attachment, it is possible for the Tribunal to grant relief.

¶41

There is substance in the contention of the Counsel for

¶42

the petitioners. Since this is a disputed question of fact, it will have to be addressed by the Tribunal, which is again a fact finding body. It is appropriate that such application is made before the Appellate Tribunal, which would possibly consider the petitioners’ case favourably.

¶43

¶44

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶45

Sd/- JUDGE

¶46

Sri K Rangaswamy S/O Late Krishnappa v. Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Rangaswamy S/O Late Krishnappa v. Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Raziq Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Krishnamurthy Vs M/S Shiva Shakthi Printers

Kassia Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Sri. Suryanarayan v

Smt M Girijamma Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police

Sri. D. S. Veeranjaneya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C H Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka