Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMoney Laundering - Seeking vacation of property - Attachment of property - notice for vacating the property was issued to the petitioner without providing any opportunity - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The subject property was attached after confirmation by the Adjudicating Authorities under Section 8 (3) of the Act. Once the Adjudicating Authorities confirmed the attachment under Section 8(3) of the Act, then the authorities are empowered to take possession of the property. In this context, the impugned order has been issued. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Opportunity of hearing is contemplated both under Section 8 as well as Section 9 of the Act. Under Section 8(2) proviso clause, it is stated that, “if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering. When the proviso clause contemplates an opportunity to a person interested, in the present case, undoubtedly, the petitioner is a person interested as he claims that he had purchased the property from the owner and the Civil Suit instituted by him was also ended in his favour. However, the appeal suit is pending - the authorities ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to submit all the documents enabling him to establish his case and thereafter take a decision for the purpose of proceeding with the matter. Contrarily, the respondents admitted the possession of the petitioner in the subject property. The respondents in the present case directly issued a notice of eviction asking the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over possession within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice. Thus, valuable opportunity of defence has been denied to the petitioner and even under the principles of law such an opportunity cannot be denied - the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural Justice. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner setting out the facts and circumstances, as well as the allegations within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
|