TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as substantial relief has been granted by the learned Single Judge in permitting the operation of two bank accounts in order to cater the day-today need of the appellant-Trust - the present writ appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to argue all the grounds before the Adjudicating Authority. - Writ Appeal No. 124/2021 (GM-RES) - - - Dated:- 8-4-2021 - S.C. Sharma And S. Vishwajith Shetty, JJ. For the Appellant : Raviverma Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Jagadeesha B.N., Advocate For the Respondents : N.B. Nargund, Addl. Solicitor General and Jayakara Shetty, CGC JUDGMENT S.C. Sharma, J. 1. The present writ appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 17(1A) of the PMLA, 2002 and the appellant has not violated any provision of law in order to be investigated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and due process was not followed before freezing the accounts. It is further stated that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by allowing it in part and the appellant was not given an opportunity to advance the final arguments. 3. Before this Court, the appellant and respondent-Union of India were given full opportunity to advance their arguments. 4. Paragraphs 11 to 16 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition reads as under: 11. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 12. Petitioner is aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by learned ASG is one and a half months. 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that by following the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rose Valley, it would be just and appropriate to permit operation of account by the petitioner subject to a maximum withdrawal of ₹ 60 lakhs to cover expenses for 45 days and to grant one and half months time to the first and second respondents to complete the investigation. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Petition is allowed in part. (b) Petitioner shall be permitted to operate the accounts bearing No. 50200019793101-IAIT-HDFC and 2288700000056-IAIT-KOTAK which have balance of more than ₹ 30 lakhs, to with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the accounts have been frozen for over four months from 25.08.2020. 6. Another important aspect of the case is that some of the bank accounts of the appellant were also frozen for alleged violation of the statutory provisions as contained in Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and in respect of the aforesaid alleged statutory violation, a writ petition was preferred i.e. W.P. No. 51601/2018. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition has passed an order on 22.11.2018, which reads as under: ORDER Sri. Pradeep, learned Central Government Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the activities and financial operation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Judge has granted interim relief permitting the appellant-Trust to operate the accounts, which were the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition, only with a view to ensure that the employees working in the appellant-Trust receive their salary. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the bank accounts have not been frozen in accordance with the statutory provisions and action has been taken for violating the provisions of PMLA 2002. It has been argued that the details of the bank accounts have been mentioned in the writ appeal as well as in the writ petition and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has clarified the issue in respect of freezing the accounts. His contention is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. 11. In the present case, the contentions canvassed before this Court can certainly be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority and the date has already been fixed by the Adjudicating Authority. The present appellant-Trust is certainly free to participate in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and as the matter is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as substantial relief has been granted by the learned Single Judge in permitti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
