Partly allowed

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda v. Deputy Director

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2021WP/34970/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a summons dated 13.06.2016 issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The court held that the summons failed to indicate specific allegations regarding the petitioner's actions, granting the petition in part with liberty to the respondent to reissue an appropriate summons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summons dated 13.06.2016 bearing No.ECIR/5/BGTV/2016/531 is quashed with liberty to the respondent to reissue an appropriate summons.

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda Vs Deputy Director — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.34970/2016 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI H RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA S/O MR. LATE K HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.81, 9^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570009

¶8

.... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SWAROOP ANAND R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, B BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR TTMC, KH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE/SUMMONS DTD 13.06.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNX-D.

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has impugned summons dated 13.06.2016 under Section 50(2)(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, and the petitioner's chief grievance is that the impugned summons does not indicate how the petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time working as a Joint Director of District Industries Centre, Mysuru should be summoned. The respondent has filed detailed statement of objections, but it is stated on its behalf that in view of the petitioner’s grievance that the notice does not contain any allegation indicating the reasons for summoning, the impugned summons may be quashed with liberty to the respondent to reissue appropriate summons.

¶19

¶20

In the light of this submission, the petitioner must succeed to this limited extent and it would be needless to observe that if any summons is issued after this order, the petitioner would be at liberty, subject to all just exceptions in law, to urge grounds which are not considered by this Court in this petition. Therefore, the petition is allowed in part and the impugned summons dated 13.06.2016 bearing No.ECIR/5/BGTV/2016/531 (Annexure-D) is quashed with observations/liberties as aforesaid.

¶21

SD/- JUDGE

¶22

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda v. Deputy 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

Mr G R Natraj Vs Wilasa Apartment Owners Association

Smt Anandamma Vs Sri M Prithviraj

Sri Channaiah Vs Sri Channaiah

K Jayaprakash Since Dead by Lrs Vs B S Veerabhadran Dead by Lrs B Nagesh

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Basavaraju

S K Krishna Vs Sri Venkatesh Raju