9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts from buyers within India in exchange for digital goods and services. These goods and services are supplied by merchants that have been integrated into Nium Singapore's operations through their proprietary platform known as Instarem Masspay. 2. On 23rd-24th February, 2024, during the investigation under ECIR/KCZO/06/2024["ECIR"], Respondent No. 2- Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement authorised a search at the office premises of Petitioner under Section 17 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ["the PMLA"]. This operation culminated in an order dated 24th February, 2024 directing freezing of nine bank accounts of Petitioner under section 17 (1-A) of the PMLA. Following the search, Respondent No. 2 filed an Original Application with Adjudicating Authority- Respondent No. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice ["SCN"] dated 4th April, 2024, along with copy of 'reasons to believe' that outline the grounds for enforcement under section 8 of the PMLA. The Petitioner contends that the full set of Relied Upon Documents ["RUD"] and the detailed 'reasons to believe' justifying the search under Section 17 (1) of the Act were not initial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking relief of stay of proceedings in Original Application, pending disposal of the appeal. The Petitioner also pursued an urgent hearing by contacting Respondent No. 3 via email on 23rd July, 2024. This communication requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 30th July, 2024, in the Original Application, to prevent proceeding without resolution of the outstanding appeals. However, the Petitioner received no response to this request, further impeding their ability to prepare and present their case adequately. 4. The Petitioner then preferred an urgent listing application, which was mentioned before the Appellate Tribunal on 23rd July, 2024 and accordingly, the appeal and the stay application were heard on 25th July, 2024. Petitioner asserts that the Appellate Tribunal refused to grant stay, as prayed by Petitioner and adjourned the matter for hearing to 21st November, 2024. It is asserted that till date, copy of the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 25th July, 2024 has not been provided to them. Petitioner has applied for inspection of the records of Appellate Tribunal, however, that request has also not been acceded to. 5. In the above circumstances, Petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the afore-noted precedents and statutory provisions, the Respondents assert that the Petitioner should pursue the statutory remedies provided under the PMLA rather than seeking intervention through a writ petition. 8. Responding to the contention urged on the maintainability of the present petition, Mr. Aggarwal argues that Respondents' argument regarding the non-maintainability of the writ petition is misplaced. He challenges the assertion that the availability of an alternative remedy inherently precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Aggarwal cites precedents where this Court has indeed entertained writ petitions despite the availability of statutory appellate remedies. They refer to order dated 02nd June, 2022 passed in M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement W.P.(C) 6354/2022. Further bolstering this argument, Mr. Luthra refers to the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2021) 6 SCC 771 which elucidates circumstances under which courts may intervene despite the existence of alternative remedies. Both Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es or carries on business or personally works for gain." 11. The statute clearly outlines that appeals can be filed to the High Court within sixty days from the date the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved party, addressing any question of law or fact arising out of such order. For the purpose of this Section, 'High Court' has been defined to be the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The Petitioner is based in Mumbai, conducting business and presumably working for gain there. Consequently, based on the explicit language of Section 42, the High Court of Bombay would ordinarily have jurisdiction to hear appeal against decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 25th July, 2024. 12. The situation which emerges in the present case was also considered, in Aasma Mohammed Farooq (Supra), which is evident from the following portion of the judgment: "10. Mr. Chaudhri may be right in contending that the notice under Section 8 of the Act has been issued by the Authority in Delhi, so jurisdiction is there for this Court to entertain the writ petition. But merely because a pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by this Court to the following effect: "The High Court of Delhi has, by the impugned judgment, decided that as a matter of forum conveniens, the petitioners should approach the High Court of Bombay. We are in agreement with what has been stated therein. The interim protection, that has been granted by the High Court of Delhi till 15.12.2018, will continue for one more month from today so that the petitioners may approach the High Court of Bombay and ask for interim relief. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications stand disposed of" 14. The factual scenario in the instant case parallels the Aasma Mohammed Farooq case in some ways. The Petitioner in the present case is also based in Mumbai. However, the present challenge is directed against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, for which a statutory appeal pathway is explicitly outlined in Section 42 of the PMLA, suggesting that the Bombay High Court would be the appropriate forum for such an appeal. 15. That said, the Court must also consider the order dated 02nd June, 2022 passed in M/s Incred Financial Services Ltd. (Supra) wherein the preliminary objection raised by Directorate of Enf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedural delays. In that backdrop, the Court observed that Petitioner could not be deprived of his right to pursue remedies available and therefore, it could not be said that this Court would lack territorial jurisdiction. As regards W.P.(C) 7656/2022, as noticed in paragraph no. 6 above, the challenge was directly against the authority of the Adjudicating Authority to proceed under Section 8 of the PMLA after a lapse of 180 days since the issuance of the provisional order of attachment. The direct challenge to the authority's jurisdiction, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, highlighted a substantive legal question that warranted immediate judicial review. 18. Before us, the Petitioner is assailing the order of the Appellate Tribunal. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court based on the presence of the Appellate Authority within its geographical bounds. This fact, while establishing a basic criterion for territorial jurisdiction, does not inherently justify overlooking the structured remedies provided under statutory law. The legal framework provided by Section 42 of the PMLA specifies that appeals against decisions of the Appellate Tribunal are to be fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
