Quashed

G.Venkatanarayanan v. Deputy Director

Madras HC18 Jul 2024WP/4665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Madras quashed a Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.12.2022 under the PMLA against the petitioner's properties. The Court held that since the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking not to conceal, transfer, or create encumbrances over the properties, the object of the attachment was satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.15/2022 dated 02.12.2022 and recording of the petitioner's affidavit undertaking.

G.Venkatanarayanan Vs Deputy Director — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

W.P.No.4665 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4664 of 2023

G.Venkatanarayanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

Deputy Director, Office of the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, Murugesa Naicker Complex, 84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 6. (Ref: F.No.ECIR/CEZO/12/2016 dt: 02.12.2022)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.15/2022 dated 02.12.2022 in F.No.ECIR/CEZO/12/2016 on the file of Deputy Director, Office of the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel, for Mr.B.A.Sujay Prasanna

¶14

Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.P.Sidharthan Special Public Prosecutor (EP)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶19

The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 02.12.2022 made under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA), of 12 immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his wife.

¶20

2. Though several grounds have been raised in this Writ Petition, attacking the validity of the impugned PAO, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no intention of creating any encumbrance over the properties, which are the subject matter of the impugned PAO and that the petitioner has also given his own affidavit in this regard. The affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, is as follows:-

¶21

Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶23

Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶25

Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶27

Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶29

Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶31

3. To the aforesaid affidavit, the Assistant Director of the

¶32

Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, has also filed a reply which reads as

¶33

follows:-

¶34

Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶36

4. The object behind passing of the original PAO is to prevent any person who is in possession of any proceeds of crime from concealing, transferring or dealing with it in any manner which may result in frustrating confiscation of such proceeds of crime under PMLA.

¶37

5. The affidavit furnished by the petitioner also affirms that the petitioner would not conceal, transfer or deal with, in any other manner to create any encumbrance over 12 properties referred to in the impugned PAO.

¶38

6. As such, the interest of the respondent has been protected and hence, the provisional attachment could be lifted.

¶39

7. In the light of the above observation, the affidavit of the petitioner as extracted above, is hereby recorded and the impugned Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.12.2022, is hereby quashed. It is further recorded that the petitioner shall abide by the undertaking given in his affidavit, which has been recorded in this order.

¶40

Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶42

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands ordered. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]

¶44

18.07.2024

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

Sni

¶47

¶48

1.Deputy Director, Office of the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, Murugesa Naicker Complex, 84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 6.

¶49

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶50

Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

¶52

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Sni

W.P.No.4665 of 2023

18.07.2024

Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Venkatanarayanan v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkatanarayanan 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

Hussain Sherif Vs Union of India

Amirthavalli Vs the State Represented by Its

K.Govindaraj Vs Union of India

Suresh @ Muruganantham Vs the State Rep by

Bhavani Vs the Secretary to the Government

Shahul Hameed Vs the Secretary to Government