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 immovable properties acquired and mortgaged before the alleged scheduled offence could be treated as proceeds of crime and provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the petitioner, as a secured creditor, had a preferential claim over the attached properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. (iii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether immovable properties acquired and mortgaged before the alleged scheduled offence could be treated as proceeds of crime and provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime in Section 2(1)(u) was read as comprising three distinct limbs. The properties in question were admittedly acquired before the alleged criminal activity and were not derived from tainted money. The Court held that the second limb, relating to the value of property derived or obtained from criminal activity, does not authorise attachment of any untainted property merely because tainted property is unavailable. The expanded explanation to Section 2(1)(u) was held not to justify attachment of unrelated assets. The Court also found that the impugned attachment lacked the material necessary to form a valid reason to believe under Section 5.
Conclusion: The properties were not proceeds of crime and could not be validly attached under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, as a secured creditor, had a preferential claim over the attached properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Analysis: The Court considered Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, but held that those provisions operate in a different field from the attachment and confiscation regime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The secured creditor provisions give priority over other debts and government dues, whereas attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is directed against proceeds of crime. Since the attachment itself was invalid for want of proceeds of crime, the secured creditor issue did not support sustaining the impugned action, though the statutes were found not to overlap in the manner urged.
Conclusion: The secured creditor provisions did not validate the attachment, and the petitioner's challenge succeeded on the independent ground that the properties were not proceeds of crime.
Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: Although an alternate statutory mechanism existed, the Court held that the exceptional facts justified writ intervention because the authority had acted without the material required for reason to believe under Section 5 and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court treated the defect as jurisdictional and not a matter to be relegated to the statutory forum.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the petitioner was not relegated to the alternative remedy.
Final Conclusion: The provisional attachment and the connected show-cause notice were quashed to the extent of the specified immovable properties, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired from legitimate sources before the alleged scheduled offence, and lacking a direct or indirect nexus with tainted property, cannot be attached as proceeds of crime under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
TaxTMI 
