Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 557 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner before Adjudicating Authority - Seeking to defreeze petitioner's attached Bank accounts - respondent No.2 has not summoned the petitioner company or any or its officers - proceeds of crime or not - Section 8(2) of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of M/S. KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2022 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER], wherein it was held that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA shall have no bearing on the challenge to the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 of the PMLA, which can be decided/adjudicated independently irrespective of the remedy available under Section 8 of PMLA. Whether the bank accounts of the petitioner could be attached? - it is contended that since registration of the ECIR till date, the respondent No.2 has not summoned the petitioner company or any or its officers and as such it is unclear how respondent No.2 has come to the conclusion that the bank account in question is in receipt of proceeds of crime or is involved in money laundering - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the judgement of Supreme Court in Swaran Sabharwal [1987 (5) TMI 374 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that held that the procedure which is contemplated under Section 17 of the PMLA regarding seizure was not adhered to (which is not an issue herein) and therefore, the seizure was bad. This cannot be construed to mean the Supreme Court had disagreed/overruled its decision in the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra) where it was held that a bank account can be considered to be a “property”. The plea the Provisional Attachment Order dated August 25, 2021 does not expressly state that the Bank Account itself is attached, is also untenable, as the said Provisional Attachment Order in paragraph 20 under ‘Schedule of Attached Properties’ include the Bank Account with the amount lying therein. It is held that the petitioner is not entitled to the prayers made. The petition is dismissed.
|