ALOK ARADHE, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Directorate of Enforcement, Rep. by Assistant Director – Appellant
Versus
Karvy India Realty Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, CJ.—This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.41133 of 2022.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Nos.1 to 29 in the writ appeal are the companies registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. On the basis of a complaint made by the Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HDFC Bank’), First Information Reports (FIRs) bearing FIR No.78 of 2021, dated 22.04.2021 and F.I.R.No.86 of 2021, dated 01.05.2021 were registered against M/s.Karvy Stock Broking Limited (KSBL) and its directors and M/s.Karvy Comtrade Limited and its Directors respectively for the offence under Section 420 IPC. A provisional order of attachment dated 18.07.2022 was issued under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.09.2022 was issued by the Union of India.
3. The validity of the aforesaid provisional order of attachment dated 18.07.2022 and show cause notice dat
Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Company Limited vs. State of Assam
Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India
Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association
Namit Sharma vs. Union of India
State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam
Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas S. Advani
Under PMLA, Adjudicating Authority neither has power to decide on criminality of offence nor does it have power to impose punishment – Powers under Section 6 can be exercised by an Adjudicating Autho....
The adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can function with a single-member bench as per Section 6(5)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Chairperson to constitute ....
The court upheld the validity of a show-cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, affirming that the adjudicating authority may operate as a single-member bench without violating sta....
Point of law: Provisional attachment - Adjudicating Authority does not become functus officio on expiry of the period of 180 days from the passing of the order of provisional attachment unless such o....
The court emphasized the jurisdiction based on the location of the Appellate Authority, the wide power of the Appellate Tribunal, the limited scope of seeking constitution of a two-member Bench under....
Judicial Members are essential in significant cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and modification applications to revisit judgments after many years are typically viewed as an abuse ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the right to cross-examination and the interpretation of 'an order under this Act....
(1) Attachment and confiscation of property – Special Court cannot go into issues which higher forums have been entrusted with.(2) Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of PMLA are stand-alone provisions – S....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.