TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e validity and/or legality of the registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in proceedings in ECIR.No. KCZO/4/2014, dated 19.08.2014 and consequential Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2019 (for short, "the PAO") issued in ECIR/04/KCZO/2014/1137, dated 22.07.2019 under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short, "PMLA") on the file of the respondent and quash the same. 2. After elaborate order, this Court dismissed the writ petitions mainly on two grounds namely (i) the review applicants have an effective alternative remedy under Section 8 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act and (ii) the High Court of Madras has no territorial jurisdiction, though a minuscule cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the Special Court at Kerala is seized of the matter. Therefore, it was held that the Writ Petitions filed before this Court are not maintainable. 3. Now, Mr. Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review Applicant No. 22 of 2021 submitted that the above reasons of this Court are error apparent on the records. The provisions of the PMLA would show that two different clauses are contemplated un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business of the concerned person alone will determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, a clear demarcation of jurisdiction is made in respect of criminal proceedings for trying the offence of money laundering and in respect of attachment and confiscation in the nature of civil proceedings vesting the power on different High Courts. Therefore the findings of this Court with regard to territorial jurisdiction is an error apparent on the face of record. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is also demonstrated by the fact that against the confirmation order of the first provisional order, the Review Applicants filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 26 of PMLA on the ground that there is a delay in forwarding the copy of the order to the adjudicating authority and it vitiates the order of attachment. The Appellate Court, accepting the submissions of the Review Applicants, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the order, the department filed an appeal under Section 42 of PMLA only before this Court which would show that this Court alone has got the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions are error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the order passed by this Court is required to be reviewed and the Review Applications have to be allowed. 8. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Review Applicant in Review Application No. 21 of 2020 submitted that in para No.19 of the order passed in the writ petitions, this Court has observed that the investigation was done by CBI and final report has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erunakulam at Kerala. It is no doubt CBI investigated the scheduled offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and the contravention of Lotteries (Regulation) Act. But this observation is not relevant in this case. In Para No.19, this Court also observed that "Therefore the complaint complaining alleged commission of offences under PMLA has to be tried only before the Special Court at Kerala." However, the complaint under PMLA before the Special Court at Kerala and complaint by CBI before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erunakulam are entirely different. The complaint filed under PMLA before the Special Court was not produced before this Court because no argument was addressed by either parties touching....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties. 13. For the purpose of reviewing the matter, the matter has to fall within Order 47 of CPC. In the guise of seeking review, it cannot be reargued. This Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is alternative remedy and there is no jurisdiction vested with this Court. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, an appeal has to be filed against the order passed in the writ petition even if the review applicants feel that the conclusion is erroneous in nature. The Review Applications are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the case, which cannot be permitted. 14. With regard to the appeal in CMA filed by the Department before this Court, it is submitted that Section 42 of the PMLA deal with the appeals to the High Court. It is reiterated that Appeal under Section 42 has its beginning with a provisional order of attachment under Section 5. A confirmation or rejection of the same is provided under Section 42 against which an appeal remedy is provided before the Appellate Authority under Section 26. An order passed by the Appellate Authority is appellable under Section 42 of the Act before the concerned High Court. The High Court is designed under the expl....