SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Directorate of Enforcement - Appellant
Versus
Pc Financial Services Private Limited & Anr. - Respondents
LPA 592 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC & Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Mr. Ved Prakash & Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocates., for the Appellant; Mr. S. Ganesh & Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Atul Pandey, Mr. Hirak, Mr. Karan Gupta & Mr. Milind Jain, Advocates., for the Respondents

Headnote:

Money Laundering - Non-Banking Financial Companies - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) - Section 37A(1) of FEMA - [PMLA, FEMA] - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) in the context of the investigation of Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) and Fintech Companies for money laundering. The court emphasized the availability of an appeal before the Tribunal and the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court cited several precedents to support the principle that the High Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available under the relevant statute.

Fact of the Case:

The Directorate of Enforcement was investigating Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) and Fintech Companies under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The respondent company filed multiple petitions seeking release of seized funds, leading to a series of orders by different courts.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had an equally efficacious alternative remedy available through an appeal before the Tribunal and should have exhausted statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent should have pursued the appeal before the Tribunal instead of seeking relief through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that the High Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available under the relevant statute. The court cited several precedents to support this principle.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and requested the Tribunal to decide the appeal at an early date, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, J. - The present appeal is arising out of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No.8514/2022 titled PC Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Another.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant Directorate of Enforcement is investigating a number of Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) and Fintech Companies under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). In exercise of the powers conferred under the PMLA, the appellant seized an amount of Rs.106,93,84,385/- (Rupees One Hundred and Six Crores Ninety Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Five only) vide seizure order dated 26.08.2021 [later corrected as Rs.87,84,26,805/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Crores Eighty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Five Only)] vide letter dated 12.10.2021 to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), and an amount of approximately Rs.51,22,88,087/- (Rupees Fifty One Crores and Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Eighty Seven Only) under Section 37A(1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) vide Seizure Orders dated 26.08.2021, 30.09.2021 and 15.12.2001.

3. The respondent No.1 company preferred a Writ Petition No.36212/2021 before the High Court of Telangana praying for quashment of the impugned Seizure Orders and directing release of the properties which have been seized, and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.02.2022 passed in the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 36212/2021 directed release of Rs.15,35,45,317/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Thirty Five Lakhs forty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seventeen Only).

4. An appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana, i.e. Writ Appeal No.87/2022 titled Directorate of Enforcement Vs. PC Financial Services Private Limited & Others, and the Division Bench by an order dated 25.02.2022 has set aside the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The respondent No.1 company preferred a Special Leave Petition, i.e. SLP (Civil) No.7551/2022 titled PC Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 13.05.2022 passed in the said SLP directed release of the funds of Rs.15,35,45,317/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Thirty Five Lakhs forty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seventeen Only).

6. It is pertinent to note that subsequently respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before this Court (High Court of Delhi), i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 8514/2022 on 25.05.2022 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.05.2022 has directed release of an additional amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores Only) to respondent No.1 company. An interim application was preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.06.2022 challenging the grant of additional relief to the respondent No.1, however, the same was dismissed.

7. The appellant later on filed a complaint dated 21.06.2022 under Section 16(3) of the FEMA before the Adjudicating Authority against the respondent No.1 company and the other Noticees praying for penalisation of the Noticees and for confiscation of the seized properties of Rs.252,36,23,862/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Two Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Two Only).

8. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 31.05.2022 granting release of additional amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores Only) was challenged before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal, i.e. LPA No.487/2022. This Court has disposed of the said LPA because at the relevant point of time, the Appellate Tribunal was not functional, and the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by this Court is reproduced as under:

    'CM APPL. 36656/2022 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA 487/2022 & CM APPLs. 36655/2022 & 36657/2022

    1. Mr. S Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the R

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                        Please visit our Training & Support
                        Center or Contact Us for assistance

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top