Dismissed

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforecement

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2021CW/9980/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an ad judicating order under the PMLA regarding property attachment. The court held the petition inadmissible as the matter was already under challenge before the Appellate Authority and noted the failure to disclose constructive possession before that authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; stay application disposed.

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Director… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9980/2021

¶3

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt Ltd., Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Shri Tikamkhandelwal. Registered Office At 171, Officer Campus Ext. Sirsi Road, Near Sanskar School, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforecement, Jaipur Zonal Office, Ii Floor, Jeevan Nidhi - Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Archana with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

07/12/2021

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this Civil Writ Petition aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2018 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority to the extent of the Hotel Palak Paradise.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the PMLA complaint was filed on 11.07.2016, a provisional attachment order was issued on 15.05.2018 whereby Palak Paradise hotel was attached. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.11.2018 confirmed the order which was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and status quo order was passed on 21.12.2018.

¶14

It is also contended that vide Annexure-4 dated 28.11.2018 and Annexure-5 dated 14.12.2018, notice for taking possession

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-9980/2021]

¶17

has been given by the authorities. The Appellate Authority is not functional and therefore, petitioner was not left with any remedy but to approach the High Court in writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the High Court in cases “Dushyant Hada Vs. Union of India” in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13065/2019 issued notices to the respondents and in the meantime, status quo relating to the property was directed to be maintained where the entire premises was seized and petitioner who was a resident was not being permitted to use his premises.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Seema Garg Vs. Dy. DIR., Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA), Jalandhar” 2020(374) E.L.T. 46(P & H) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was a case where properties were mortgaged with the bank and owners were neither arrayed as accused in schedule offence nor criminal complaint was filed before the special court under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the case it was held that the appellants are entitled to benefit of time period cap prescribed by Section 8(3) and that provisional attachment order ceased to exist by operation of law. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. The property was provisionally attached and the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the order vide order dated 09.11.2018. When the matter was challenged before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed the following orders “As agreed, status quo shall be maintained by both the parties as of today” 12:00 O’clock. This order was passed on 21.12.2018. Prior to this date vide Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 dated 28.11.2018 and 14.12.2018, petitioner was informed that in compliance of provisions contained in Sub-section 4 of Section 8

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CW-9980/2021]

¶21

of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, constructive possession of the premises has been taken over by the Enforcement Directorate. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority.

¶22

The order dated 09.11.2018 which is challenged in this writ petition is already under challenge before the Appellate Authority and this Court cannot entertain the present writ petition, merely, because the Appellate Authority is not functioning, more particularly, when stay was obtained from the Appellate Authority without disclosing about the constructive possession being taken over. No question arises before this Court to entertain the present writ petition. The Judgment cited by the petitioner does not apply on the fact.

¶23

This Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

Stay application stands disposed.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /24

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforecement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforecement

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

Vinod Bhandari Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Madanlal @ Sonu Son of Shri Kundanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nilesh Choudhary S/O Shri Babu Lal B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

R F C Jaipur Vs Ram Swaroop

Girraj Prasad and Another Vs Murari Lal through Lrs and Others

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs Vs Development Officer P S Peesangan and Ors.