Dismissed

P.Sashi Kumar v. The Joint Director

Madras HC5 Feb 2021WP/2010/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Enforcement Director to take action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court held that case registration depends on objective satisfaction regarding predicate offences, and no statutory duty exists compelling action based solely on a complaint.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

P.Sashi Kumar Vs The Joint Director — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:05.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. NO. 2010 OF 2020

¶6

P.Sashi Kumar ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Shastri Bhavan, III Floor,
3rd Block, B Wing,
No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai.
2.State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch
rep. by its Chief Manager,
Red Cross Buildings,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 8. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first
respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of
petitioner's complaint dated 02.05.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Nandakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil,
Sr. Panel Counsel for R1
Mrs.S.R.Sumathy for R2

¶7

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that he gave a complaint dated 10.03.2018 to the authorities and that they have not taken any action on the said complaint. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition for a mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to take appropriate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the complaint dated 10.03.2018 given by the petitioner.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

3.In the opinion of this Court, a direction of this nature cannot be issued since registration of a case by the Enforcement Directorate is based on the commission of the predicate offence and that too, based on the objective satisfaction that should be arrived at by the authorities for such registration. There is no statutory duty, for the registration of a case under the PMLA, based on such a complaint, for this Court to issue a mandamus. It is trite that a mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a breach of statutory duty.

¶12

4.In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another (2002 5 SCC 521), the Supreme Court stated that investigation cannot be stalled in order to find out if a person committed the offence as that would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

5.With the above observation, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
1.The Joint Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Shastri Bhavan, III Floor,
3rd Block, B Wing,
No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai.
2.The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
Red Cross Buildings,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 8.
+1cc to Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate, S.R.No.6647

¶14

W.P. No. 2010 of 2020 AK II(CO) KKV/26/02/2021

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Sashi Kumar v. The Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sashi Kumar v. The Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Alias Dhanarajan Vs State Represented by

Kolavi Kannan @ Nagaraj Vs State Rep.by

P.Kannan Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Rani Vs the State by

Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Govindaraji Vs State Rep by