The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdictional limitation in challenging actions taken by the enforcement authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the availability of alternative and efficacy remedy.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-company under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs of issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the FIR in No.ECIR/MBZO-1/15/2013 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and also various directions, to quash the search and seizure of the account and to declare the search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as illegal and unconstitutional and other various reliefs.

2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner counsel and learned Special counsel for the respondents-ED.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-ED registered a FIR in ECIR/MBZO-1/15/2013 based upon the FIR registered by the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai in Crime No.316/2013 for various IPC offences and the offence under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC are the schedule offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act'). Hence, the ED registered a case against the petitioner-company in the above said FIR and during the investigation in the year 2013, the ED said to be conducted the search and freezed the bank account of the petitioner and sent the seized amount and other materials to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17 of the PML Act. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the proceedings on various grounds.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued mainly on the ground that the predicate offence registered by the Mumbai Police in Crime No.316/2013 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s).31/2017 on 27.03.2017. When the predicate offence is already stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ED has no authority to proceed with its investigation and seize any documents in the PMLA case and contended that it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the predicate offence is stayed, the proceedings in PML Act should also be stayed until disposal of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the judgment of the Madras High Court.

5. The learned Senior counsel further contended that Oshiwara Police, Mumbai registered the FIR in the year 2013 and ED also registered the FIR in the year 2013, but, from last ten years, they have not taken any action in this matter and after staying the predicate offence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023, the ED raided the company of the petitioner and freezed the account due to which, the petitioner is suffering heavy loss and the company required to make salary to the employees, the company has to pay GST, TDS deductions, etc., the company required to pay Rs.12.9 crores per month and various expenditures and because of freezing the account, the company would put into hardship and loss, therefore, prayed for defreezing the account by declaring the search conducted by the ED as illegal. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the very search and seize is illegal in view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the predicate offence, therefore, prayed for declaring the search and seize as illegal and to defreeze the account.

6. Per contra, the learned Special counsel appearing for the ED objected the petition mainly two grounds that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Court since the predicate offence in FIR registered at Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai and the ED also registered FIR at Mumbai. After the search and seize, all the materials were forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17A of the PML Act. The Adjudicating Authority is at Delhi. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner can approach the Bombay High Court for questioning the search and Adjudicating Authority seizure and also can approach the at Delhi, therefore, the petitioner is not