Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 185 - HC - Money LaunderingViolation of PMLA - writ prayers seek protection of possession claimed by petitioners against respondents or allow petitioners to continue to remain in possession of properties claimed by them under lease arrangement - Held that:- The petitioners claim a right through respondent Nos. 3 to 6 or respondent No. 3 as the case may be, who are accused in the case pending investigation and trial under the PMLA, 2002. The mode, manner and method of exercising jurisdiction under Sections 5 and 8 together with vires of the Act have been unsuccessful, and steps under the PMLA, 2002 are taken up by 2nd respondent. After first two important rounds namely, provisional attachment dated 30-3-2010 and order confirming provisional attachment on 21-7-2010 as late as, June, 2011, the petitioners claim a right to possession through lease arrangement. The lease arrangement pleaded is certainly after the cloud has shrouded on the activities of the accused in the crime registered on 9-1-2009 and subsequent registration of Enforcement Case by the 2nd respondent. At the time of alleged execution of lease arrangement, the accused in the crime registered by CID and also the case registered by Enforcement Directorate, several Directors were suffering from more than one disability of free participation, much less voluntarily part possession by creating third party interest on the properties held by them subjected to attachment under the PMLA, 2002. The sequence of events stated by petitioners appears to be improbable, since this Court is not adjudicating on legality of orders passed under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, 2002, further deliberation is not undertaken, except to note that the assertion of petitioners that a right or a subsisting right is created is without merit and warrants rejection. This Court refrains from expressing further view in this behalf. Therefore, the very documents on which the petitioners rely upon, this Court has difficulty in recognising the right claimed by the petitioners, much less protect the right or possession alternatively pleaded by petitioners in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are governed by the law as on the date of orders passed under Sections 5(5) and 8(4) and therefore by operation of Section 8(4) read with possession claimed to have been taken on 29-3-2011 and without any resistance thereafter by the accused in the Enforcement Case, the steps taken by the 2nd respondent are one in the nature of removing the occupation of persons without right and title and for such eventualities Section 54 authorises the 2nd respondent to take the assistance of one or the other authorities specified therein. The proceedings, dated 19-12-2013 and 24-7-2014 are steps taken in accordance with law and are legal and valid. This Court, for the above reasons, is not persuaded to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either for protecting the right claimed by the petitioners or the alternative prayer to allow petitioners to remain in possession of respective properties claimed by them.
|