2018 (4) TMI 1888 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court upholds decision on property attachment order challenge, directs pursuit of statutory remedies

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

The High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the provisional attachment order challenged in the writ appeal. The ... Provisional attachment order - land sold to the appellant by the Bank officials, by way of private negotiations, as against the guideline value, without properly resorting to the regular methods of bringing the property to public auction - HELD THAT:- The learned Single Judge has thoroughly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and declined to interfere with the impugned order of provisional attachment, however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the adjudicating authority, who is the fact finding authority There are no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference with the same, except to direct the adjudicating authority to expedite the matter and pass order on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. It is for the adjudicating authority as a fact finding authority to look into the grievance of the appellant with regard to raising of provisional attachment or whether they are genuine party are whether there is any camouflage activity. Appeal disposed off. Issues:Challenge to order of provisional attachment based on alleged irregularities in property sale process.Analysis:The writ appeal was filed challenging the order of provisional attachment passed by the respondent, which was declined to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The appellant, a purchaser of land from the State Bank of India, was implicated in a criminal case due to alleged irregularities in the sale process, causing a monetary loss. The appellant argued that the actual loss to the government was lower than claimed, suggesting alternative properties for attachment. The Single Judge emphasized the availability of statutory remedies before the adjudicating authority and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the adjudicating authority for relief.Upon review, the High Court found that the Single Judge had correctly appreciated the case's facts and circumstances, refusing to interfere with the provisional attachment order. The High Court directed the adjudicating authority to expedite the proceedings and make a decision based on merits and in accordance with the law after hearing both parties. The adjudicating authority, being the fact-finding body, was tasked with examining the appellant's grievances regarding the attachment and determining the authenticity of their claims. The appellant was granted the freedom to present all contentions, including requests for interim relief, before the adjudicating authority.In conclusion, the writ appeal was disposed of without costs, with the connected miscellaneous petition being closed. The High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, emphasizing the role of the adjudicating authority in resolving the issues raised by the appellant regarding the provisional attachment order and the alleged irregularities in the property sale process.