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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Rbl Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 381 of 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kunal Tandon and Ms. Richa Sandilya, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kavish Garach and Mr. Hasnain Khawaja, Advocates, for the Respondents.

The court emphasized the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy within the scope of the PMLA Act and upheld the decision to relegate the Appellant/Bank to the Adjudicating Authority.

Headnote:

PMLA Act - Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order - Section 5(1) - Section 8(2) - Section 8(8)

Fact of the Case:

The Appellant sought to challenge the Order dismissing the writ petition, which sought to set aside the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The Appellant/Bank had moved an application for directions seeking permission to confirm the sale of the subject property which was mortgaged to the Appellant/Bank. The learned Single Judge allowed the application, permitting the sale of the subject property and directing the Appellant/Bank to approach the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(2) first proviso of the PMLA Act to establish that the subject property is not involved in any money laundering activities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Appellant/Bank has an alternate efficacious remedy within the scope of the PMLA Act. The learned Single Judge's decision to relegate the Appellant/Bank to the Adjudicating Authority to ventilate its grievances under Section 8(2) of the PMLA Act was upheld.

Issues: Challenge to the Provisional Attachment Order, permission to confirm the sale of the subject property, and the Appellant/Bank's priority over the rights of the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the decision to relegate the Appellant/Bank to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(2) of the PMLA Act, finding that the Appellant/Bank has an alternate efficacious remedy within the scope of the Act.

Final Decision: The LPA was dismissed, and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 20666/2023 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA 381/2023 & CM APPL. 20665/2023

1. The Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 22.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10048/2019, dismissing the writ petition.

2. A Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.12/2019 dated 02.09.2019 in ECIR No. ECIR/05/DLZO-II/2018 was passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi attaching the immoveable property bearing No. D-PH-01, 12th Floor, Central Park-I, Sector-42, Main Sector Road, Near DLF Golf Course, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as `subject property') under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `PMLA Act').

3. Pursuant to the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.09.2019, Original Complaint No.1201/2019 was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 26.09.2019. The Appellant/Bank approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 10048/2019 challenging the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.09.2019 seeking the following relief:

    "(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Certiorari thereby setting aside/quashing the Impugned Order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement of Directorate, DLZO-II, New Delhi in Provisional Attachment Order No.12/2019;"

4. This Court vide Order dated 13.01.2020 in W.P.(C) 10048/2019 stayed the proceedings of the adjudicating authority qua the Appellant herein observing as under:

    "...In the meantime, there shall be a stay on further proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority qua the petitioner and the properties claimed to have been mortgaged to the petitioner."

5. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO by an order dated 21.02.2020. Since the proceedings qua the Appellant herein was stayed by this Court, the Adjudicating Authority observed that directions in respect of the properties will be passed after the disposal of the Writ Petition.

6. In the writ petition preferred before the learned Single Judge, the Appellant/Bank had moved an application bearing No.12337/2021 for directions seeking permission to confirm the sale of the subject property which was mortgaged to the Appellant/Bank and the registration of the necessary documents relating thereto. The learned Single Judge allowed the said application vide Order dated 04.06.2021 permitting the Appellant/Bank to proceed and finalise the sale of the subject property with the proposed purchaser through a private treaty and also directed that the sale proceeds received by the Appellant/Bank would subject to further Orders. It was also made clear that in case, the Appellant/Bank is unsuccessful in the writ petition; the Court may consider passing appropriate Orders for restitution.

7. The writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on 22.03.2023. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties held that the sale proceeds would continue to remain with the Appellant/Bank and the Appellant/Bank is free to approach the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(2) first proviso of the PMLA Act to establish before the Adjudicating Authority that the subject property is not involved in any money laundering activities. The learned Single Judge vide the Order impugned herein in the present LPA passed the following directions:

    "14. It is observed that the challenge is to a PAO dated 2nd September, 2019 and the purpose of ensuring that the subject property is duly sold and the amounts are realized, has been achieved. Further, the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 8(2) first proviso of the PMLA Act, 2002 to approach the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) and to establish that the subject property is not involved in money laundering. In view thereof, the following directions are passed:

    (i) The matter shall now proceed before the Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of PMLA Act, 2002.

    (ii) The Petitioner would be free to file an application

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