TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1043
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2021 the notices were issued upon the respondent nos.5 to 9 (now, respondent nos.4 to 8). The respondent no.5 has been served through her son. The respondent no.6 has been served personally. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that the petitioner made personal service of notice upon the respondent nos.5 and 6 (now, respondent nos.4 and 5) and both are residing together. Thereafter, this matter was adjourned to 28.04.2022 and 09.05.2022, however, the respondent nos.5 and 6 (now, 4 and 5) have chosen not to appear in the Court. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel has appeared for respondent nos.6 to 8. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the eviction notice dated 08.06.2021 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises being holding no.2154/A/228, MIG House No.M-28 situated at Mauza Bariatu Booty Road, Ranchi within 10 days of receipt of the notice. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by virtue of an agreement this petitioner has come into possession of the property in question from the year 1991 itself and the petitioner has purchased the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Directorate and the notice was served upon the learned counsel for the Union of India. This matter was adjourned on that day as it was submitted on that day by the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate that the notice has not been served. He submits that on the same day, the notice was served upon the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and thereafter the request was also made to the concerned authority not to take any coercive steps, however, the petitioner has been evicted and the possession of the property has been taken. He submits that so far section 26 of the said Act is concerned, wherein provision of appeal is made that is not a bar to entertain the writ petition if the principles of natural justice is not followed. To buttress his this argument, he relied in the case of "Whirlpool Corp.v. Registrar of Trade Marks" reported in (1998) 8 SCC pg.1. By relying on this judgment, he submits that this petition is maintainable and this Court is competent to pass the order if the principles of natural justice is not followed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate submits that eviction not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment issued in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, this Court is of an opinion that such contentions are untenable in view of the fact that the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 categorically enumerates that the proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. This apart, Section 8 also contemplates offence under Section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime. Thus, it is not as if the date of occurrence which is relevant. If the proceeds of crime is not the possession of the alleged offenders, then also the authorities under the Act, are empowered to register a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 67. In view of the fact that the compex facts and circumstances raised in these writ petitions, cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage, since the writ petitioners have challenged the very show cause notice and the attachment order passed. The writ petitioners are bound to submit their statements, documents to the respondents to establish their innocence at the first instanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is fit to be dismissed. 8. In the light of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not the owner of the property. The property in question was in the name of the wife of the petitioner who has sold the property to one Pawan Kumar Singh in the year 2005. Pawan Kumar Singh was the accused in ECIR/02/PAT./2012 and he was the owner of M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and with regard to that coal company, Pawan Kumar Singh was facing the money laundering case. Thus, it is an admitted that the property in question was in the name of Pawan Kumar Singh, however, the petitioner was continuing and living in the property in question. It is section 5 of the said Act, which provides for procedure for attachment of the property involved in money laundering. In section 8 of the said Act, the procedure for adjudication is there, which is read as under: "8. Adjudication.-(1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of Section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of Section 17 or under sub-section (10) of Section 18, if the Adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and] [(b) become final alter an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58-B or sub-section (2-A) of Section 60 by the [Special Court].] [Explanation.-For the purposes of computing the period of three hundred and sixty-five days under clause (a), the period during which the investigation is stayed by any court under any law for the time being in force shall be excluded.] (4) Where the provisional order of attachment made under sub-section (1) of Section 5 has been confirmed under sub-section (3), the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall forthwith take the [possession of the property attached under Section 5 or frozen under subsection (1-A) of Section 17, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that if it is not practicable to take possession of a property frozen under sub-section (1-A) of Section 17, the order of confiscation shall have the same effect as if the property had been taken possession of.] [(5) Where on conclusion of a trial o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of the said Act. The procedure prescribed herein also speaks of issuing notice to the person and after hearing to pass the order. Rule 5 and 6 and also Form-1 and Form-2 are not in dispute which was the mode of notice wherein it has been prescribed the manner to take possession of immovable property and mode of service of notice and the format of notice has also been provided in Form-1 and Form-2. In the case in hand, the disputed questions of fact are involved. The petitioner has already filed a title suit with regard to the property in question which is still pending. The learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate has contended that notices have been issued which has been disputed by the petitioner. 10. In the facts and the background of this case it appears that the petitioner is third party and if third party is involved, in the statute care has been taken to adjudicate the same in light of section 9 of the said Act and the Special court is empowered to exercise that. Section 26 of the Act also speaks to file appeal if any person is aggrieved by the order made by the adjudicating authority under the Act. Thus, there are two remedies available to the petitioner und....