The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the correctness of orders confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to modify such orders.
The writ appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage with no costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 15.02.2017
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO AND
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Writ Appeal No.152 of 2017
P.Karuppusamy
.. Appellant
Versus
.. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.01.2017 made in W.P.No.1857 of 2017 by the learned single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Nooty.Ramamohana Rao,J)
This Writ Appeal is preferred by an individual, challenging the correctness
of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1857 of 2017 on
2
25.01.2017. The said Writ Petition was instituted by him seeking modification of the order of attachment dated 01.06.2015. The Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office and the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, are the only Respondents to this Writ Petition. An order of interim attachment has been passed by the Enforcement Directorate as there is a serious allegation of Money Laundering indulged in by an individual by name Sri. Srinivasan. As part of the investigation carried on with regard to the said crime, the premises of the said Srinivasan has been searched and some incriminating material has been retrieved therefrom. Based upon such material a provisional attachment order has been passed on 22.09.2014 which was in fact confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, later on.
made. Thereafter, under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act, the officer
3
passing the provisional attachment order shall forward a copy of the order mentioning the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority, and under sub-section (3) every provisional attachment order shall cease to be effective after the expiry of 180 days unless an order under Section 8 of the Act is passed in the meantime. Under Section 8, the adjudicating authority shall pass an order recording a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued in sub-section (1) of the said Section are involved for moneylaundering and where the provisional order of attachment is brought to his notice, the same was required to be confirmed by an order in writing and such attachment shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the Act. When once an order of confirmation can be passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it goes without saying that any modification order can also be passed later on by that very Authority. (See Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897).
4
NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO, J AND S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J
gr.
of provisional attachment. Instead of approaching the Adjudicating Authority, the
writ petitioner has instituted the writ petition.
gr.
W.A.No.152 of 2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ appeal seeking modification of an order confirming provisional attachment of property under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Whether the Adjudicating Authority is the sole competent authority to confirm, vary, or modify orders passed under Sections 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Karuppusamy
The Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Nooty.Ramamohana Rao
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
