2024 (8) TMI 210 - HC - Money Laundering

Mumbai petitioner must use Section 42 PMLA statutory appeal to Bombay HC, not Delhi HC writ petition

Nium India Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Nium India Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 2024:DHC:5675 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Denial of access to critical documents, including 'reasons to believe' and Relied Upon Documents (RUD).3. Maintainability of the writ petition given the existence of alternative statutory remedies under the PMLA.Issue-Wise Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The Court first addressed the preliminary determination of its jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The jurisdictional inquiry centered on whether the existence of alternative remedies, as stipulated under Section 42 of the PMLA, precludes the Court from exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226. The statute explicitly outlines that appeals can be filed to the High Court within sixty days from the date the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved party. The High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business is the appropriate forum. Given that the Petitioner is based in Mumbai, the High Court of Bombay would ordinarily have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal.The Court referenced the judgment in Aasma Mohammed Farooq v. Union of India, where it was held that although part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court would be the 'forum conveniens' due to the location of the Petitioner and the properties involved. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the principle that the High Court of the jurisdiction where the aggrieved party resides should be approached.2. Denial of access to critical documents, including 'reasons to believe' and Relied Upon Documents (RUD):The Petitioner argued that the lack of documentation severely undermined their ability to comprehend and effectively respond to the Original Application before the Adjudicating Authority. They contended that the denial of access to the 'reasons to believe' and other critical documents violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's argument but noted that the primary issue was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given the statutory remedies available.3. Maintainability of the writ petition given the existence of alternative statutory remedies under the PMLA:The Respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 42 of the PMLA. They cited the judgment in Aasma Mohammed Farooq, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to support their contention. The Petitioner countered by arguing that the availability of an alternative remedy does not inherently preclude the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226. They cited precedents where writ petitions were entertained despite the availability of statutory appellate remedies, particularly in cases where fundamental rights were at stake.The Court considered the precedents and statutory language, concluding that the appeal mechanism under Section 42 of the PMLA is both appropriate and sufficient for addressing the grievances presented by the Petitioner. The Court found no basis to conclude that the alternative remedy was not equally efficient and adequate. The Court emphasized that the rule regarding the exhaustion of statutory remedies is a matter of judicial discretion, and in this case, the statutory remedies provided under the PMLA were deemed adequate for resolving the legal challenges at hand.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petition, along with pending applications, on the grounds that the statutory remedies provided under the PMLA were adequate and sufficient for addressing the Petitioner's grievances. The Petitioner was directed to pursue the available statutory remedies, specifically the appeal mechanism outlined in Section 42 of the PMLA, which was deemed appropriate for resolving the legal challenges presented.