Depositors' claims dismissed in credit cooperative society due to assets attachment under Money Laundering Act

The court dismissed the depositors' claims seeking settlement of their deposits in a credit cooperative society due to assets being attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It emphasized that depositors should pursue their claims through appropriate legal remedies under the law, including approaching the appellate Tribunal and making claims before the liquidator. The court highlighted that the jurisdiction and locus issues raised by the respondents could be addressed by the Appellate Forum, concluding by disposing of the petition and allowing depositors to seek relief through prescribed legal channels.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the settlement of claims by depositors in a credit cooperative society, attachment of assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), dismissal of claims by depositors, appropriate legal remedies available to depositors, and jurisdiction of the Appellate Forum.

Settlement of Claims by Depositors:
The petitioners had deposited their amount in a credit cooperative society and sought settlement of their claims based on the utilization of the society's assets for reimbursing lawful depositors. However, the respondents argued that the assets of the society were subject to attachment under the PMLA, preventing any immediate relief to the depositors. The respondents advised the depositors to join the appellate Tribunal to pursue their claims for reimbursement.

Attachment of Assets under PMLA:
A previous case had dismissed the claims of depositors due to an attachment order issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the PMLA. The court found that final attachment orders had been issued, and as such, the relief sought in the writ petitions could not be granted. The court emphasized that depositors could challenge the subsequent orders through appropriate legal remedies under the law.

Dismissal of Claims by Depositors:
The court reiterated that approaching the court in the writ jurisdiction was not the correct remedy at that stage, highlighting the availability of appropriate remedies under Section 26 of the PMLA. The court acknowledged the earlier orders allowing depositors to make representations to the liquidator for their claims but concluded that the events and legal framework did not warrant interference at that stage.

Legal Remedies Available to Depositors:
The judgment emphasized that depositors should address their issues before the appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and make their claims before the liquidator. The appellate Tribunal would then decide on the claims, and the liquidator would act in accordance with the law. If any cause of action remained, the depositors were granted liberty to approach the court again.

Jurisdiction of the Appellate Forum:
The court mentioned that the issue of locus and jurisdiction raised by the respondents before the Appellate Forum could be decided after hearing both parties as per the law. The judgment concluded by disposing of the present petition and all pending applications, allowing depositors to pursue their claims through the prescribed legal channels.

---