2018 (2) TMI 2047 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds provisional attachment order, directs petitioner to challenge before Adjudicating Authority

M/s. VGN Property Developers Pvt Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai.

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order, emphasizing the petitioner's right to challenge it before ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Provisional attachment Order - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the impugned order is only provisional attachment order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is having a right to agitate the matter before the adjudicating Authority by raising all the points raised before this Court and seek for raising the attachment. When such statutory remedy is available to the petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority, who is a fact finding authority as well, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition that too, challenging the provisional order of attachment. Without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made in this writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority and file appropriate application and seek appropriate relief, as provided under law - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge against provisional attachment order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment order dated 13.02.2018, expressing grievance regarding the attachment of a property where significant investments had been made, involving the interests of around 650 customers. The petitioner proposed offering an alternative property to secure the alleged loss of revenue amounting to Rs. 53.50 crores. The petitioner's counsel argued for the consideration of this alternative property by the respondent instead of continuing with the attachment. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel highlighted the dismissal of a previous Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the FIR, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot seek relief from the Court after the provisional attachment order has been passed.After hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged that the order in question was a provisional attachment order. It recognized the petitioner's right to challenge the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing that the statutory remedy available should be pursued. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment, considering the availability of the statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority. The Court also noted the previous dismissal of the petitioner's attempt to quash the FIR, emphasizing that a conclusion on innocence cannot be made until the investigation is completed. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority and seek appropriate relief as per the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made in the writ petition. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.