Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTScheduled offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - whether the alleged offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was included in para 8 of the schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by amendment to the said Act only in the year 2013? - provisional attachment - Held that:- Before passing the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, notices were issued to the writ petitioners. Further, even while passing the Order of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order by the Adjudicating Authority, statements of the writ petitioners were called for and they were also recalled to give evidence in the matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Provisional Attachment Order passed by the respondents/authorities and the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority of the said Provisional Attachment, are without following the due procedure and giving fair opportunity to the writ petitioners herein to submit their say in the matter. Therefore, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. As regards the notice dated 5.10.2016 issued to the petitioners for taking possession of the property, the writ petitioners have to challenge the same by preferring an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and they cannot directly approach this Court by filing the writ petitions invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. When the provisions of the statute itself i.e., The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 itself provides for challenging the said orders by preferring an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, as it is rightly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents/authorities, the writ petitions are not maintainable, since as per Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, only when a person is aggrieved by the decision or order of the appellate Tribunal, such person can approach this Court by preferring an appeal.
|