TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishabh Sancheti and Ms. Padma Priya, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitya Sharma, Ms. Shreya Sinha and Mr. Sumit Misra, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Adv. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the show cause notices dated 12th November, 2015 under Section 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) issued by the respondent Financial Intelligence Unit India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India to each of the three petitioners namely Shri Joseph Massey, Shri Shreekant Javalgekar and Shri Jignesh Shah and seeks compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners (i) that the respondent which is a statutory body enacted under the PMLA, vide order dated 4th November, 2015 held the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) to be guilty of failing in several obligations under the PMLA and imposed a total fine of ₹ 1,66,00,000/- on NSEL and directed NSEL to register itself as a reporting entity under the PMLA; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holly illegal; (b) that the High Court should leave such a hasty petitioner to pursue the remedy of showing cause against the notice, raising all his contentions for the consideration of the statutory authority and then approach the High Court, in the event of the result going against him; (c) deprecating entertaining of petitions challenging show cause notice; (d) such writ petitions to be premature; (e) that a show cause notice serves no other purpose than to set the machinery of law into motion and has no serious consequence because the noticee is heard before an order is made that the petition was not maintainable, the senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned ASG appearing for the respondent on advance notice were heard extensively on the admissibility of the petition and order reserved. 4. The senior counsel for the petitioners contended: (i) that the order dated 4th November, 2015 supra of the respondent is against NSEL only and has in this regard drawn attention to para 8 of the said order to demonstrate that the show cause notice preceding that order was issued to NSEL only and to para 6 of the order finding NSEL only to be guilty and to para 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records can be entrusted even to a Non-Executive Director; (g) relied on Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 also deprecating the practise of entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices resulting in stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties; (h) argued that the petitioners will have opportunity before the respondent to raise all the pleas; (i) contended that the respondent could have proceeded against NSEL as well as the petitioners together but having not proceeded against the petitioners along with NSEL, there is no bar thereto at this stage also; (j) that the respondent is yet to reach the stage of returning finding and no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. The senior counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder: (i) reiterated that Section 142 of the NI Act is pari materia; (ii) drew attention to the words in the course of any enquiry in Section 13(2) of the PMLA and contended that in the course of the enquiry by the respondent against NSEL, nothing against the petitioners was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India thereagainst, unless is issued by a person having no authority / jurisdiction to do so or is otherwise patently illegal. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices. Similarly, the petitioners have otherwise not shown any other patent illegality in the show cause notices. The other arguments urged are such which can be urged by the petitioners in response to the impugned show cause notices and unless the respondent, after considering the said reply of the petitioners decides to take action against the petitioners, the petitioners would have no cause of action or grievance. If the arguments as urged by the senior counsel for the petitioners were to be accepted, it would nullify what has been held consistently by the Courts, of non-maintainability of writ petitions against show cause notices. 10. Supreme Court in Shri Anant R. Kulkarni supra held that the facts and circumstances of the case in question must be carefully examined by the High Court before entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show cause notice, taking into co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
