TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titions, whereas Appellant No. 2, Mr. Pravin John Sequeira, Deputy General Manager, Compliance, JSW, was the petitioner in one of the writ petitions. Challenge in Writ Petition No. 7499 of 2022 was to the proceedings, including the investigation emanating from ECIR/09/BZ/2012, whereas in Writ Petition No. 11399 of 2022, the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences against Appellants No. 1 and 2 and issuing summons was challenged. As the facts were common, both the writ petitions were taken together and disposed of by a common order dated 13.06.2022. The High Court of Karnataka proceeded to dismiss both the writ petitions, leading to the filing of the present appeals. 2. The facts in brief can be summed up by ascertaining that Appellant No. 1 is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, involved in the business of manufacturing steel and has plants in various locations. JSW entered into an agreement/contract with Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (hereinafter "OMC") for the supply of 1.5 Million Metric Tons (MT) of iron ore, fines, and lumps to its plant at Vijayanagar on 16.11.2009. From November 2009 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, on 21.04.2015. JSW challenged the PAO by filing Writ Petition No. 17894 of 2015 before the High Court of Karnataka. On 11.06.2015, JSW filed Writ Petition No. 24444 of 2015 seeking quashing of Original Complaint No. 457 of 2015 and the show cause notice dated 27.04.2015. 9. Another PAO No. 11 of 2016 for INR 9,43,86,883.50/- (Nine Crore Fourty Three Lakh Eighty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Three Rupees and Fifty Paisa) was issued on 30.03.2016, which JSW challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 19313 of 2016 on 04.04.2016. Consequently, Original Complaint No. 587 of 2016 was filed by ED on 25.04.2016 issued therein. 10. On 29.02.2016, G. Janardhan Reddy and G. Lakshmi Aruna filed Writ Petitions No. 11440-11441 of 2016 seeking quashing of ECIR/09/BZ/2012 proceedings. In the Writ Petitions which were preferred by G. Janardhan Reddy and G. Lakshmi Aruna and the other petitioners therein including the ECIR's, attachment orders etc. were quashed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 13.03.2017 by holding that the ED could not have invoked the provisions of the PMLA with retrospective effect for the offences w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eventually dismissed on 08.03.2022. 18. JSW then filed WP No. 7499 of 2022, challenging all proceedings emanating from ECIR/09/BZ/2012. Meanwhile, ED filed a complaint dated 08.04.2022 before the Special Court under Section 44 and Section 45(1) of the PMLA against Appellant No. 1, which was registered as Private Complaint (PCR) No. 21 of 2022. On 11.04.2022, the Special Court took cognizance and issued a summons to JSW and its officials. An additional affidavit bringing this aspect to the notice of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7499 of 2022 was filed on 16.04.2022. ED filed its reply on 19.04.2022, which came to be considered and decided against the appellants. The said Writ Petition was heard on 20.04.2022 and judgment was reserved. 19. In the meantime, JSW received a fresh summons dated 30.05.2022 served on 03.06.2022 for appearance of its representatives on 30.06.2022. JSW filed Writ Petition No. 11399 of 2022 on 06.06.2022, challenging the cognizance order dated 11.04.2022 on grounds of noncompliance with Sections 202 & 204 CrPC. Both Writ Petitions 7499 of 2022 & 11399 of 2022 were decided together and dismissed on 13.06.2022 20. The common order is under challe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submitted that the present case discloses a clear and continuing offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Submission has been made that in pursuance of this Court's Order dated 23.09.2011 passed in Govt. of A.P. & Ors. v. M/s Obulapuram Minig. Co. P. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010, CBI registered FIR RC 18(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/BLR on 01.10.2011 for serious offences under IPC, PC Act, MMDR Act, and Forest Act against the partners of AMC. After investigation, a charge sheet dated 30.05.2012 was filed depicting extractions and sale of illegally mined iron ore to the extent of 24 Lakh MT valued at approximately INR 480 Crore including supply of 4,31,491.27 MT to JSW Steel Ltd. during FY 2010-11 valued at INR 118.13 Crore. 27. It is submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement recorded ECIR/09/BZ/2012 on 25.09.2012 and after investigation found that INR 33,80,87,617/- (Thirty-Three Crore Eighty Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventeen Rupees) remained payable by JSW to AMC which constituted "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. To secure this amount, PAO No. 08 of 2015 dated 27.03.2015 for INR 24,37,00,733.50 (Twenty-Four Crore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility. This is because the stay order was prospective in nature and did not annul the lien that had already been marked on the accounts. 32. In the light of the deliberate conduct of the appellants in dissipating attached amounts and their continued possession of INR 16.55 Crore of proceeds of crime, this Court ought not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the cognizance order and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 33. Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, we note that the Appellants have already invoked their statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA, which remains pending. 34. It is important to note that the PMLA provides a comprehensive and self-contained adjudicatory mechanism. Section 5 enables Provisional Attachment, Section 8 contemplates confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, and Section 26 provides an appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellants, in the present case, have already invoked their statutory remedy of Appeal, which remains pending. 35. This Court has consistently held that constitutional or appellate jurisdiction should ordinarily not ....