Dismissed

Mrs. Kavitha Surana v. Adjudicating Authority

Madras HC25 Nov 2022WP/10221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted the petitioner in W.P.No.10221 of 2022 and connected W.M.P.No.9926 of 2022 to withdraw her writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, thereupon dismissing the writ and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition was granted, dismissing the writ and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

Mrs. Kavitha Surana Vs Adjudicating Authority — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25..11..2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.10221 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.9926 of 2022

Mrs.Kavitha Surana

..... Petitioner

-Versus-

1.Adjudicating Authority [Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002] New Delhi.

¶11

2.Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Chennai Zone – I, Chennai, Government of India, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, C-Block, Murugesa Naicker Complex, No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

.... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent herein leading to passing of the order dated 28.12.2021 in Page 1 of 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

¶16

O.A.No.454 of 2021 and to quash the same and further direct the 2^nd respondent to release the properties seized from the petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor (ED)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,]

¶20

When this writ petition was taken today up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this court to withdraw the writ petition and also made an endorsement to that effect. Permission is granted.

¶21

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under

¶23

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Consequently, connected WMP stands closed.

¶24

(P.N.P., J.) (G.C.S., J.) 25..11..2022

¶25

Index: Yes/No kmk

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

¶32

¶33

1.Adjudicating Authority [Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002], New Delhi.

¶34

2.The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Chennai Zone – I, Chennai, Government of India, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, C-Block, Murugesa Naicker Complex, No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006.

¶35

3.The Special Public Prosecutor (ED cases), High Court, Madras.

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

¶39

P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,

kmk

W.P.No.10221 of 2022

25..11..2022

Page 5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mrs. Kavitha Surana v. Adjudicating Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Kavitha Surana v. Adjudicating Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Rep by Vs Udhaya @ Udhaya Kumar

T.K.Shankar Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Mooventhan Vs the State Rep by Its

State Rep by Vs Natesan

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Viruthammal Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government