TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also attempting to open the two lockers and take away it's contents, the legality of the said act cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, in these writ petitions, for the reason that the petitioners are having an effective alternate remedy under Section 26 of PMLA. No doubt, there is no provision for stay in respect of the appeals to be preferred under Section 26 of PMLA. However, it is settled position of law that the Appellate Authority being the creature of a Statute, is having inherent power, to grant interim orders pending disposal of the appeal, and in such a view of the matter, it is always open to the petitioners to move applications for stay. This Court is of the view that the writ petitions are not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s C.C.No.19 of 2014, and it is pending on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Chennai and both the petitioners had also appeared before the said Court. 3(ii) In the above said case, both of them filed applications for discharge and the same was dismissed on 6.5.2015, and challenging the same, Crl.R.C.No.564 of 2015 has been filed before this Court and it is pending consideration and the presence of the petitioners/accused is also dispensed with for the present. 3(iii) The second respondent, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Prevention of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Central Act 15 of 2003 (in short, PMLA ), has passed a Provisional Order of Attachment bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to challenge the said order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, in the manner known to law. 4.The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the order dated 26.5.2015, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA. 5.Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the attention of this Court to the show cause notice dated 30.3.2015, and would submit that the show cause notice itself is not in consonance with Section 8(1) of PMLA and though the Counsel appeared and sought for adjournment, it was not granted by the Adjudicating Authority, even overlooking the fact that the complainant was also not present and therefore, in all fairness, the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, that since the petitioners are having an effective alternate remedy, the writ petitions are not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the same. 9.The Court heard Mr.K.Moorthy, learned Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the third respondent, also. 10.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 11.Admittedly, the petitioners made a challenge to the Provisional Order of Attachment dated 12.3.2015, by filing W.P.No.8831/2015 and the same has been entertained and it is pending adjudication. The petitioners challenging the correctness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move the Appellate Authority under Section 26 of PMLA and if they are belatedly filing the appeals, they are also entitled to invoke proviso to Section 26(3) of PMLA. If the appeals are entertained, they are at liberty to move applications for stay and in that event, the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the same and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petitions are dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
