TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction to entertain these Writ Petitions on the ground that the properties of the petitioners, which are subjected to attachment under the PAO, are situated within the State of Tamil Nadu? HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned PAO, it is seen that reason was recorded to the effect that huge money was earned by the petitioners predominantly through the business of Sikkim Lotteries in the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, which they have claimed as legitimate income in the Income Tax Returns. It was further recorded in the impugned PAO that on a comparison of the money earned by the petitioners and the remittance made to the Sikkim Government towards sale of Lottery, it was a pittance received by the Government of Sikkim and thereby Government Revenue have been misappropriated. It is also recorded that such an earnings was by way of a conspiracy with the officials of the Sikkim Government to cheat the Government of Sikkim, which is a glaring violation of the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act. Admittedly, as against the PAO, there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the PMLA Act, 2002, before the Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, which are represented by Mr. A. John Kennedy, the first petitioner in W.P. No. 25177 of 2019. Since the Writ Petitions are filed with identical prayer and the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are inter-related to each other, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows: (a) The Lotteries (Regulation) Act was enacted by the Central Government to regulate the trading of Lotteries throughout India and it came into force on 07.07.1998. The Government of India did not frame any Rules under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, till the year 2010. The Government of India, under the said Lotteries (Regulation) Act, permits the respective State Government to organise, promote or conduct Lottery business, subject to certain conditions specified in Section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act. As per Section 4 of the said Act, the State Government shall sell its Lottery tickets through Distributor or Selling Agent. Section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act empowers the State Government to frame Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. (b) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sikkim as a serious competitor to its own Lottery ticket. However, the Lottery sales of the petitioner continued unabated, pursuant to the order of the High Court concerned on the petition of the sole distributor. Thus, the State of Kerala, through its officials, harassed the sole distributor in various ways using the State Machinery, especially the Police authorities, by conducting raids and confiscating Lotteries of Sikkim State etc. (e) At the height of such harassment, based on the complaints given by the various authorities of the Government, the State of Kerala through its Police, registered 32 First Information Reports (FIRs), vindictively, in the year 2010 against the sole distributor as well as its agents, for the offences under Sections 34, 120-B, 406, 417 and 420 IPC and also under Sections 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 4(f) and 4(g) read with Sections 7(3) and 9 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and the allied provisions of the Kerala Paper Lotteries Rules, Kerala Online Lottery Rules and the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules. As per the complaint, the stockists and selling agents of Sikkim Lottery Tickets are selling fake and bogus Lottery tickets to the people of Kerala and cheate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sikkim denied the consent sought by the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The said quash petition had been filed in Crl. M.C. Nos. 1871 and 6912 of 2019 before the High Court of Kerala. (j) In the meantime, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) forwarded the final report to the Enforcement Directorate, Kerala, as desired by them, vide letter dated 26.02.2014 for their information and necessary action. On the basis of the final report filed by the CBI for the offences under the Lottery (Regulation) Act and Rules framed thereunder, including the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, the ECIR dated 19.08.2014 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Kerala, naming seven persons as suspected persons in the ECIR on the basis of the above CBI charge sheet. After registration of the ECIR, the Enforcement Directorate had made Provisional Attachment Order (PAO), dated 22.07.2019 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, thereby, series of properties of the petitioners herein, which are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, have been attached. Challenging the PAO, the present two Writ Petitions have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority has to statutorily satisfy itself with regard to the liability and responsibility to subjectively confirm or not to confirm the said original complaint in O.C. No. 1180 of 2019 within 180 days from the date of issuance of PAO, dated 22.07.2019, by virtue of Section 8(3) of the PMLA, 2002, after complying with the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the PMLA. Therefore, the petitioners should have availed the statutory remedy available to them in terms of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the PMLA Act, 2002, before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi. Even if any order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi, the petitioners can prefer a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26(1) of the PMLA. If the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, then, in terms of Section 42 of PMLA, the petitioners can very well approach this Court. The petitioners, without doing so, have invoked the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed the present Writ Petitions. (c) The Writ Petitions are filed before this Court without availing the statutorily pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al attachment. When the petitioner's claims is based on considerable proportion on issues of facts, which are capable of being decided by a competent statutory authority, there appears to be little reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction at this stage. (d) The Government of Kerala is not a party to the Writ Petitions and therefore also the writ petitions are not maintainable. Further, the cases were registered in the State of Kerala with regard to the sale and distribution of Sikkim State Lotteries. Crime No. 764 of 2010 was registered against Santiago Martin and others by Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, on the basis of the complaint from the Head of Lottery Monitoring Cell, Government of Kerala. Crime No. 658 of 2010 was registered by Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Intelligence, Kerala, in which the Santiago Martin and others, were arrayed as accused persons during the course of investigation. Further, Crime No. 75 of 2010 was registered by the Thrikakkara Police Station against Santiago Martin and others. Crime No. 413 of 2020 was register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into an agreement containing covenants contrary to the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and Rules. Therefore, according to the final report, the petitioners deceived the Sikkim Government in not remitting the full sale proceeds of the Lottery Tickets. The Charge Sheet also states that the first accused (A-1) was practically conducting the Sikkim Government Lotteries in the name of M/s. FGSIPL (M/s. Future Gaming Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.) and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC read with Sections 4(d), 4(f), 7(3) and 9 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Rules 3(5) and 4(5) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 and Sections 120-B and 420 IPC are scheduled offences as defined under Section 2(1)(x)(y) of the PMLA. (f) This Charge Sheet is pending trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ernakulam. Lack of complaint on the part of the State of Sikkim is not an issue in the proceedings under the PMLA. The CBI, in its final report, had specifically mentioned the reasons for not investigating the role of public servants in Sikkim. The Government of Sikkim denied the consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken by the officials of Sikkim Lottery Directorate. The clean chit said to have been given by the Sikkim Government to its sole distributor, is apparently without being aware of the manipulation in prize winning tickets done at M.J. Associates. (j) The offence of money laundering cannot be ascertained from the charge sheet filed by the agency investigating the schedule offence, but by the investigation under the PMLA. The FIR for the schedule offence or the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is only a triggering point for investigating into the offence of money-laundering. The offence under the money-laundering is independent and distinct from the schedule offence and it is continuous and stand-alone offence. In this context, reference was made to the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Smt. Janata Jha and another Vs. Assistant Director, reported in MANU/OR/0469/2013, wherein, it was held in paragraph 11 that, PMLA, being a special Statute, has overriding effect on the Income Tax Act and further considering the huge amounts of money, which are lying in the Bank in the accounts of the petitioners therein as well as the nature of proceeding under the PMLA, mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and his companies before the High Court of Kerala. In the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 23695 of 2016 filed by Daison Land and Development (P) Ltd., an interim order dated 12.08.2016 was passed by Kerala High Court. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein were permitted to be continued and for the second respondent therein, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner therein against the proceedings, after affording to the petitioner therein an opportunity of hearing while passing the order under Section 8(2) of the PMLA. As per the order, if PAO is confirmed, the further proceedings under Section 8(4) of the PMLA shall not be taken till further orders are received from the Court. Similarly, in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 22327 of 2016 filed by Santiago Martin, interim order dated 04.08.2016 was passed by the Kerala High Court. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein were permitted to be continued and for the second respondent therein, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner therein against the proceedings, after affording th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Government of Sikkim, and the same is to be agitated before the Court considering the CBI Charge Sheet. Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are invoked in many cases by the agencies empowered to investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with the Charge Sheet under that Act. The case of the petitioners that a Charge under Section 420 IPC would lie only on the basis of the complaint by the concerned Government, is not sustainable. The CBI, in its final report, had specifically mentioned the reasons for not investigating the role of public servants in Sikkim. The Government of Sikkim denied the consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was required by the CBI to conduct investigation in Sikkim. (q) The proceedings under Section 5(1) of the PMLA is an executive action and hence, the question of issuing any notice does not arise. After the issuance of the order, the same had been duly served on the parties concerned expeditiously. The maintainability of the Charges under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, without a complaint of loss being caused from the Government of Sikkim, is to be agitated before the Court considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before the Kerala High Court to quash the final report/consolidated charge sheet. In the said quash petition, arguments were made on behalf of the petitioners therein and the matter was posted for reply by the CBI. In the meanwhile, the CBI forwarded the final report to the Enforcement Directorate of Kerala, as desired by them, vide letter dated 26.02.2014 for their information and necessary action. On the basis of the final report filed by the CBI for the offences under the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including the offences under Sections 420 read with 120-B IPC, the ECIR dated 19.08.2014 (impugned order) was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Kerala. (c) The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners further submitted that under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, the impugned order(s) require to be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, which is situated in New Delhi, within a period of 180 days. Proviso to Section 5 of the PMLA enables that where the matter of provisional attachment is stayed by any Court, that period of stay will stand excluded and further period of 30 days will be extended. In this context, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, a part of cause of action had arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu, and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and submitted that even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (1) LW (Crl.) 265 : 2000 (7) SCC 640 (Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra) and also the decision of the Delhi High Court (Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India) and submitted that even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, Writ Petition would be maintainable before this Court, and hence, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petitions. (e) The objection raised by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of this Court to the reasons recorded in the PAO. Thus, if such condition precedent is invalid, exercise is vitiated by non-application of mind, and the petitioners cannot be deprived of the right to resort to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for resorting to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226, where the fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2015 (3) LW 202 (Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner (CT)). (f) Moreover, the proceedings under the PMLA initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Kerala, are without territorial jurisdiction and as such, there is violation of Section 51 of the PMLA and Section 51 speaks about the jurisdiction of the authorities and neither the alleged proceeds of crime generated nor contravention of Section 3 of the PMLA, had taken place within the territory of the State of Kerala. Thus, when the order is passed without jurisdiction, the Writ Petitions are very well maintainable before this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kkim Lotteries and therefore, had committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, then that by itself, the provisions of the PMLA will not apply. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsels relied on Sections 2(1)(u) and 3 of the PMLA; Section 2(1)(u) defines proceeds of crime and Section 3 deals with the offence of money-laundering. Thus, the learned Senior Counsels submitted that only if the proceeds of the crime are processed or indulged in any activity connected with it, with a view to project it as an untainted property, then alone the PMLA will have application. Mere existence of proceeds of crime out of any scheduled offence, will not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Enforcement Directorate to invoke the PMLA. In the instant case, even if the allegations of the CBI are correct, the sole distributor had not deposited all the monies obtained by sale of Sikkim Lotteries and therefore, had committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, even then, that by itself, the PMLA will not apply. There are no proceeds of crime in this case and nothing was generated in the State of Kerala. Moreover, admittedly, selling of Lottery Tickets within the State of Kerala, is not an offence. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the parties are extinguished. They have in fact been exchanged for the new rights; and the new agreement becomes a new departure, and the rights of all the parties are fully represented by it. The House of Lords in Norris Vs. Baron and Company ((1918) AC 1, 26) in the context of a contract for sale of goods brought out clearly the distinction between a contract which varies the terms of the earlier contract and a contract which rescinds the earlier one, in the following passage at p. 26: In the first case there are no such executory clauses in the second arrangement as would enable you to sue upon that alone if the first did not exist; in the second you could sue on the second arrangement alone, and the first contract is got rid of either by express words to that effect, or because, the second dealing with the same subject-matter as the first but in a different way, it is impossible that the two should be both performed. Scrutton, L.J. in British Russian Gazette and Trade Outlook Limited Vs. Associated Newspaper, Limited ((1933) 2 KB 616, 643, 644) after referring to the authoritative textbooks on the subject, describes the concept of accord and satisfaction thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and he has no right of resort to the original claim. From the aforesaid authorities it is manifest that a contract may be discharged by the parties thereto by a substituted agreement and thereafter the original cause of action arising under the earlier contract is discharged and the parties are governed only by the terms of the substituted contract. The ascertainment of the intention of the parties is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. (k) Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners, on issuance of the No Due Certificate, the contract is performed between the sole distributor and the State of Sikkim, which performance is accepted by the said No Due Certificate. Hence, the contract is extinguished and nothing will flow from it, much less, the proceeds of the crime. (l) It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners that, even assuming that there were proceeds of crime as alleged by the CBI in the final report, still, the PAO is liable to be set aside, as the condition precedent for exercise of the power of provisional attachment is not satisfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners, the reasons recorded in writing in the impugned PAO, are ex-facie illegal, invalid, and consequential condition precedent for exercising of power, is absent and hence, the proceedings connected with the PAO are liable to be set aside. Hence, for all the above said reasons, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for allowing the present Writ Petitions, by quashing the impugned order(s). 6.(a) Countering the above submissions, the learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate, submitted that, in the year 2010, originally, Kerala Police have registered 32 FIRs. against the sole distributor for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and also under the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act in various Police Stations in the State of Kerala. Subsequently, in June 2011, the Kerala State issued Notification to hand over the investigation to the CBI. Thereafter, the CBI had taken up the investigation and filed consolidated Charge Sheets before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in respect of seven cases and filed closure reports i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under the PMLA was initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement and the impugned PAO was passed on 22.07.2019 attaching the immovable properties purchased by using the proceeds of the crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The property(ies) in question were acquired by the petitioners-Companies from and out of the loans and advances given by Mr. Santiago Martin and his family members with an intention to launder the proceeds of crime amounting to about Rs. 910 crores. As per the PAO, the property(ies) are valued at Rs. 119,59,54,679/-. The PAO is valid only for 180 days and the Directorate of Enforcement filed Original Complaint (OC). No. 1189 of 2019, dated 20.08.2019 under Section 5(5) of the PMLA seeking confirmation of the PAO before the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi. (c) It is the further submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the petitioners have been served with show cause notices under Section 8 of the PMLA by the Adjudicating Authority. On receipt of such notice, the remedy open to the petitioners lies only before the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners, without approaching the Adjudicating Authority, have filed the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the State of Kerala, the CBI took up the investigation at Kerala in respect of the schedule offence(s) under the PMLA and the Charge Sheet was filed at Kerala, which is pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, Kerala. Subsequently, the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement registered the ECIR at Kerala and it was investigated at Cochin in Kerala. Upon sustained investigation, the PAO was passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Cochin, Kerala. The adjudicating authority under the PMLA is at New Delhi. The Charge Sheet/complaint for the offences under the PMLA are to be filed and tried before the Special Court at Kerala. At the conclusion of the trial, the confiscation or release order of attached property(ies) are to be passed by the Special Court at Kerala. Even some of the accused persons in the case, have already invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala by filing W.P.(C). No. 22327 of 2016 (filed by Shri. Santiago Martin) and W.P.(C). No. 23695 of 2016, which are pending. Thus, according to the learned Additional Solicitor General, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate that in the final report of the CBI, it has been specifically stated that the accused and the unknown officials of the Government of Sikkim entered into criminal conspiracy and the people in Kerala who purchased the Lottery Tickets, have been cheated, as the whole sale and draw were manipulated. In this regard, the learned Additional Solicitor General gave an example stating that Santiago Martin and John Kennedy (writ petitioners) who were in possession of unsold tickets, handed over 3 such unsold tickets to one V. Selvaraj after the draw. All the three tickets won the prize and the money was handed over to Selvaraj, who immediately sold his property, in which he himself and his minor children had interest to Martin and Company. The sum and substance of the fact is that Martin purchased the properties from Selvaraj. The sale consideration is in the form of handing over of three unsold tickets after completing the draw and awarding prizes on these three tickets. It is unbelievable that a winner of a Lottery can immediately sell his properties to the persons who conducted the Lottery. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeds of crime and the person is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the property, which may result in frustration of the proceedings relating to the confiscation of such proceeds of the crime. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the reasons stated in the impugned PAO and submitted that the impugned PAO actually does not contain any reasons for that matter. The so-called reasons stated in the impugned PAO did not consider that the State of Sikkim had issued the No Due Certificate and no statement is made to the effect that they have had any material to come to the conclusion that the properties sought to be attached, are likely to be transferred or alienated by the petitioners. Therefore, recording the reasons is a condition precedent for passing the PAO, whereas in the instant case, no valid reason is recorded in the impugned PAO. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners, further, by inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the impugned PAO, submitted that the reasons recorded in writing and communicated in the impugned PAO, are ex-facie illegal/invalid and hence, the impugned proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal with in a manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime. In paragraph 7.3 therein, it is stated that the trial of the offences, both under the PMLA, as also of scheduled offences, may take considerable time, and if power of Provisional Attachment is not exercised here, it could result in defeating the very purpose for which the PMLA had been enacted. Thus, it is not as though the PAO was passed without any reasons. The Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate had assigned reasons for attachment of the immovable properties upon satisfying with the nature of the offence alleged. 11. Admittedly, as against the PAO, there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the PMLA Act, 2002, before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi, but the petitioners have not availed of such a remedy before the Adjudicating Authority. Instead, the petitioners have approached this Court with these writ petitions. It is in this back-drop, it has to be examined as to whether exercise of the Writ Jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, will be proper or the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitions are not maintainable. The hastiness with which the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions before this Court, is not proper, when there is an alternative remedy provided under Section 8 of PMLA. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made elaborate submissions with regard to the merits of the claim and stated that the State of Sikkim had issued No Due Certificate and when such a certificate was issued, the question of investing the tainted money in the property, does not arise. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-ED that there is conspiracy between the petitioners/accused and unknown officials of the State of Sikkim, which had resulted in cheating the people at Kerala, who had purchased the Lottery tickets as the whole sale and draw were manipulated. Therefore, as stated earlier, when there are disputed questions of facts, this Court cannot go into the merits of the claim by conducting a roving enquiry to render a finding in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Authority as against the impugned PAO pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appearing for the petitioners that the ECIR states the place of occurrence as State of Tamil Nadu , among other places, and hence, a part of cause of action had admittedly arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu, and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to consider as to whether the registration of the ECIR is in accordance with law or not. 18. Since the question of jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the matter has also been raised now, as submitted above by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate for this Court to answer the issue as to whether the petitioners are justified in approaching this Court. It is true that small fraction of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, however, it is not sufficient to maintain these writ petitions before this Court. It is to be observed that only a minuscule cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, but a larger and substantial part of cause of action had arisen within the State of Kerala, where most of the occurrence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, took place. While so, we are of the opinion that merely becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga Vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney (AIR 1941 Cal 670: ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490), Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357: AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Jharia Talkies Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [(1997) CWN 122], S.S. Jain Co. Vs. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of India [AIR 1994 Delhi 126]. (emphasis supplied) 22. In the above decision (Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. case) of the Supreme Court, the Apex Court held that a High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens . Thus, there is no question of granting leave to file Writ Petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India in case where a small fraction of cause of action may have arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so held in O.S.A. Nos. 38, 40 and 42 of 2020 (Sulphur Mills Limited Vs. M/s. Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and three others), by judgment dated 11.11.2020 that, even though a part of cause of action arises in one Court and the major part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the other Court, the petition is not maintainable before the Court where the small part of cause of action had arisen. 25. On the whole, we are of the considered view that, first of all, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable before this Court, when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available for the petitioners to approach the concerned authority under the PMLA; secondly, only a small fraction of cause of action had arisen before this Court and the larger and substantial part of cause of action had arisen only in the State of Kerala, where the FIRs have been registered and the trial is pending before the Special Court at Kerala. Therefore, this Court is not the appropriate Court to entertain the present Writ Petitions. Hence, on these two grounds, the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 26. In view of the foregoing reasonings, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
