AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) issued by the respondent Financial Intelligence Unit - India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India to each of the three petitioners namely Shri Joseph Massey, Shri Shreekant Javalgekar and Shri Jignesh Shah and seeks compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners (i) that the respondent which is a statutory body enacted under the PMLA, vide order dated 4th November, 2015 held the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) to be guilty of failing in several obligations under the PMLA and imposed a total fine of Rs. 1,66,00,000/- on NSEL and directed NSEL to register itself as a repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28; (IV) Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565; (V) Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society (2013) 6 SCC 515; (VI) Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (2014) 208 DLT 56; (VII) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. MANU/DE/1034/2013 (SLP(C) No.27110/2013 whereagainst was dismissed in limine on 13th September, 2013), laying down/holding: (a) that against a mere issuance of show cause notice, the Court should be reluctant to interfere as a mere show cause notice does not infringe right of anyone and hence writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioners describes each of the three petitioners as Non-Executive Director of NSEL; (iii) that if the respondent intended to proceed against the three petitioners, ought to have proceeded against them along with NSEL only and there can be no piecemeal proceedings; (iv) parity was drawn with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881; (v) Gorkha Security Services supra lays down that the fundamental purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet and argued that the impugned show cause notices are deficient in this respect; (vi) that under Section 70(1) of the PMLA action can be taken only against such of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2(n) defining intermediary and 2(wa) defining reporting entity of the PMLA and contended that the records can be entrusted even to a Non-Executive Director; (g) relied on Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 also deprecating the practise of entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices resulting in stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties; (h) argued that the petitioners will have opportunity before the respondent to raise all the pleas; (i) contended that the respondent could have proceeded against NSEL as well as the petitioners together but having not proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts with copies of: (A) Anil Bhargava Vs. State (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 792 to contend that different complaints on the same cause of action are impermissible; (B) Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan Vs. The Special Director 1977 SCC Online Cal. 285 holding the show cause notice issued to the Director to be vague and thus bad; (C) Ajay Bagaria Vs. Union of India 2008 (103) DRJ 324 holding the requirement of minimum averments against Directors, as laid down in cases of NI Act, applicable to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 also; (D) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 388 quashing the show cause notice for the reason of being unspecific and vague; (E) Anand B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, it would nullify what has been held consistently by the Courts, of non-maintainability of writ petitions against show cause notices. 10. Supreme Court in Shri Anant R. Kulkarni supra held that the facts and circumstances of the case in question must be carefully examined by the High Court before entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show cause notice, taking into consideration the gravity / magnitude of charges involved therein and that the Court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to a conclusion which is just and proper considering the circumstances involved. This Cou....