2023 (7) TMI 757 - HC - Money Laundering

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 ... Money Laundering - attachment of properties - petitioner submits that the amount deposited in the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited and their claim for such amount ought to be settled by the respondents on count of the fact that the assets of the such society ought to be utilized for reimbursing the lawful depositors - HELD THAT:- This Court in the case of DIPESH MISHRA, DR. RAKHI KHANNA, MAN MOHAN RATHI, MUKESH NAHATA, ASHA GUPTA, SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA, SUBHASH GUPTA, RAJA RAM SINGH, SHEEFALI SARASWAT AND OTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER [2022 (7) TMI 1437 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that it is not the correct remedy at this stage to approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction, as there is an appropriate remedy under Section 26 of the PLMA. Upon such submissions having been made, this Court is conscious of the fact that earlier orders were being passed for making representation to the liquidator by the depositors for their respective claims, but the turn of events and particularly, the judgment of this Hon’ble Court as well as the proposition under the PMLA, which includes attachment and the adjudication before the appellate Tribunal, does not call for any interference at this stage. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take-up all their issues before the appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and also make their claim before the liquidator and such claim can be decided by the appellate Tribunal and in consequence of the same the liquidator may act strictly in accordance with law. 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.