TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether directions could be issued in a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation for initiating winding-up proceedings against a multi-state cooperative society when the statute provides a specific mechanism; (ii) Whether, at the stage of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court could direct release of attached properties to the liquidator in PIL jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether directions could be issued in a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation for initiating winding-up proceedings against a multi-state cooperative society when the statute provides a specific mechanism.
Analysis: Winding up of a multi-state cooperative society is governed by the statutory scheme under Chapter X of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The Central Registrar is empowered to act on the basis of audit, inquiry, inspection or on his own motion, after affording the society an opportunity of representation. The existence of this statutory framework meant that the petitioners could not seek a writ directing initiation of winding-up proceedings in the manner prayed for.
Conclusion: The request for a writ directing initiation of winding-up proceedings was not entertained.
Issue (ii): Whether, at the stage of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court could direct release of attached properties to the liquidator in PIL jurisdiction.
Analysis: An order of provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is subject to confirmation under Section 8(3) of that Act. Possession of the attached property can be taken only after confirmation, and confiscation follows only upon proof of the offence in trial. In these circumstances, the relief sought for immediate release of the attached properties was premature and the Court declined to interfere with proceedings under the Act in PIL jurisdiction.
Conclusion: No direction for release of the attached properties was issued.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition in public interest was not maintainable for the reliefs sought and was dismissed, leaving the aggrieved persons to pursue remedies available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete mechanism for winding up and for dealing with provisional attachment, a writ court will not direct those statutory processes to be bypassed or interfere prematurely in PIL jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
