2022 (7) TMI 1437 - HC - Money Laundering

Court dismisses writ petitions challenging money laundering orders for failure to disclose crucial facts.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging a letter and provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The ... Non-registration of documents relating to certain immovable properties, said to be belonging to one M/s Adarsh Credit Co-operative Societies Limited. - HELD THAT:- This Court, finds that after filing of writ petitions, the Authorities have passed order, under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, and as such, the final attachment order has been issued - This Court, finds that none of the petitioners have ever made any application in their petitions for amendment, and as such, this Court has to consider as whether these writ petitions can be heard by this Court in view of final attachment orders, which have already been passed by the Authorities on 31.03.2020. This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ petitions, if the final attachment order has been issued and the petitioners feel aggrieved against such order, then they are required to take necessary remedy to assail the same orders under the law. This Court, accordingly, dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate legal remedy for challenging the subsequent orders, which have been passed by the Authority, wherein final attachment orders have been passed - The issue of locus and jurisdiction raised by the respondents before the Appellate Forum, can always be decided after hearing both the parties as per law. Issues:Challenging letter under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Provisional attachment orders under Section 5; Order attaching petitioner's property; Concealment of facts by petitioners; Maintainability of writ petitions; Final attachment orders under Section 8; Jurisdiction and locus issues; Appellate Forum's role; Remedy for aggrieved parties.Analysis:The petitioners filed writ petitions against a letter and provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the petitions were not maintainable as important facts were concealed, such as the confirmation of provisional attachment orders by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners failed to disclose the provisional attachment order passed earlier. Some petitioners also did not reveal the filing of appeals against orders under Section 8 of the Act, which were pending before the Appellate Forum. The ASG contended that the petitioners did not challenge the final attachment orders before the court, and the appropriate remedy lay under the Act of 2002.The ASG emphasized that if aggrieved by final attachment orders, petitioners should seek legal remedy under the law instead of challenging notices. Counsel for some petitioners argued that they had approached the Appellate Forum, but no hearing had taken place. The court noted that the final attachment orders had been issued after the writ petitions were filed, and petitioners had not sought amendments. Consequently, the court had to determine if the petitions could be heard given the final attachment orders were already in place. The relief sought in the writ petitions could not be granted as the final attachment orders were not challenged.The court agreed with the ASG that the relief sought in the writ petitions could not be granted, and petitioners needed to pursue legal remedies against subsequent orders. The court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to petitioners to challenge the subsequent orders. The issue of jurisdiction and locus raised by respondents before the Appellate Forum would be decided as per law. The court directed a copy of the order to be placed in each petition for reference.