TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 1KDU-245961, Model 2013 purchased by Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha 2. The case of the appellant is that the said vehicle was purchased after taking the loan from the bank. Earlier he was in judicial custody however, later on he was released from the jail; during his absence, the car in question was being used by family members and no possession of the vehicle was taken by the respondent. Even no third party right has been created of the said vehicle by him or any of his family member. 3. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that on 12th January, 2015 the appellant has retracted his statement which was allegedly forcibly obtained. He has filed the application dated 12th January, 2015 in this regard before the Special Court and there is no material against except the statement recorded under section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for which he has already moved the application. 4. Admittedly vehicle in question has been released by the Additional Session Judge Fatehgarh Saheb, by order dated 20th November, 2013 which was in the custody of the court. The same was released on 'Superdari' on furnishing the Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has been obtained. The argument, though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, this argument clearly overlooks that the order of provisional attachment has been passed by the Appropriate Authority in exercise of powers under the provisions of the PMLA. The amount, which was frozen in terms of order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th August, 2000, was in connection with the freezing of that amount by the Narcotics Control Bureau under the provisions of the NDPS Act. That would not be any impediment for the Appropriate Authority under the PMLA to proceed with the provisional attachment of the said amount. The purpose of freezing the amount under the provisions of the NDPS Act is different than the purpose of provisional attachment of the amount under the PMLA. It is possible to argue that the amount was fully secured because of the conditions specified in the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10th August, 2000. That, however, does not mean that the Appropriate Authority could not have proceeded in the matter under the PMLA, which is a special enactment. Obtaining of permission of this Court before proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in section 8. he would not have issued the show cause notice. That he did indicates that he had reason to believe the existence of the said factors. In the facts and circumstances of the case this is sufficient compliance." 8. Shri S.A. Saud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that in view of the said decisions the prayer of the appellant is liable to be rejected. He further submits that there is prescribed procedure under the rules of the act, for the purpose of release of the vehicle the same are to be followed by the appellant in present case also by depositing the amount as per rules, therefore the vehicle can only be released to him. He submits that since the appellant has failed to follow the procedure, the prayer cannot be granted. The leave of the Court is not required in view of the decisions referred above. 9. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is in the custody of the Court. The provisional attachment was confirmed by the impugned order. As far as custody of the courts the said issue has been dealt with in the case of Teeka Vs. State of U.P reported AIR 1961 SC page 801 at 805 in para 7 which reads as under:- "7. The next quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Adjudicating Authority. It is evident that the possession of the vehicle is taken by the respondent without informing the Court. 11. Rule 7 of PMLA is read as under:- "7. Confirmed attached property in the custody of court - (1) Where the confirmed attached property is in the custody of any court, the authorized officer shall make an application to such court by providing a copy of the provisional attachment order issued under sub-section (1) of section 5 and the order under sub-section (3) of section 8 passed by the Adjudication Authority. (2) The application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall contain a relief that such property and any interest or dividend payable thereon may be released in favour of the Directorate of Enforcement." 12. The principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal V. Dr. D.R. balaji and others [1959 SCR 333: AIR 1958 SC 725] are that it is settled law that proceedings taken in respect of a property which is in the possession and management of a Receiver appointed by Court under Order 40, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure without leave of that Court are illegal in the sense that the party proceeding against the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1940. The general rule that property in custodia legis through its duly! appointed Receiver is exempt from judicial process except to the extent that the leave of that court has been obtained, is based on a very sound reason of public policy, namely, that there should be no conflict of jurisdiction between different Courts. If a court has exercised its power to appoint a Receiver of a certain property, it has done so with a view to preserving the property for the benefit of the rightful owner as judicially determined. If other Courts or Tribunals of co-ordinate or exclusive jurisdiction were to permit proceedings to go on independently of the Court which has placed the custody of the property in the hands of the Receiver, there was a likelihood of confusion in the administration of justice and a possible conflict of jurisdiction. The Courts represent the majesty of law, and naturally, therefore, would not do anything to weaken the rule of law, or to permit any proceedings which may have the effect of putting any party in jeopardy for contempt of court for taking recourse to unauthorised legal proceedings. It is on that very sound principle that the rule is based. Of course, if any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727 of page 732 & 733 in para 11-15 it is held as under:- "11. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also considered the submissions made, the judgments relied upon by the counsel, the earlier judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies and the impugned judgment. In our opinion, the High Court has committed a grave error by taking a different view than the one which had been taken by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies, especially when the rules governing the promotion policy had not been amended after the aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court. It is pertinent to note that a review application had been filed in the aforestated South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies and the same had been rejected and therefore, the judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies had become final. 12. Once in pursua....