The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, as unconstitutional. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the court held the challenge merited no relief.
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.
[2023/RJJP/011875]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11379/2020
Hriday Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., through its Authorised Signatory, Nimish Kumar S/o Lokesh Chandra Shukla, H.O. 11B, Vinayak B Complex Durga Nursery Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar on behalf of Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr. C.S. Sinha Mr. Shubham Jaimini on behalf of Mr. Anand Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
24/05/2023
This Court finds that the present writ petition challenges Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 2002’) as being ultra vires to Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the said amendment was introduced via Section 193 of the Finance Act, 2019.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi
[2023/RJJP/011875]
[CW-11379/2020]
(2 of 2)
relating to attachment of the property of the petitioner situated at Udaipur.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi - learned ASG submitted that as far as the challenge to Section 3 of the Act of 2002 is concerned, the same has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2022 (6) SCR 381 along with other connected matters.
Learned ASG further submitted that the order dated 19.09.2019 has also been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the order dated 08.11.2019 has been passed in FPA-PMLA-3274/JP/2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties involved in the present matter.
This Court, on earlier occasion, had granted time to learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions, however, today also inability has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available in the Court.
This Court finds that the challenge to the provisions of the Act of 2002 has already been upheld by the Apex Court and moreover, the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, has also been put to challenge by the petitioner.
This Court finds that the present writ petition lacks merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
AARZOO ARORA /50
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, as amended by Section 193 of the Finance Act, 2019, is ultra vires Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the writ petition challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 19.09.2019 regarding property attachment deserves to be allowed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶21
2022 (6) SCR 381 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Hriday Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
Union Of India
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Gaur
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
