IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Directorate of Enforcement - Appellant
Versus
PC Financial Services Private Limited - Respondent
LPA 592 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. investigation under pmla and seizure orders (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 2. writ petition and appeal before tribunal (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. arguments on alternative remedies (Para 10 , 11 , 22) |
| 4. precedents on alternative remedies (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 5. court's decision to allow appeal (Para 21 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. 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
Writ petitions are not entertained when alternative statutory remedies are available under the relevant legislation, emphasizing adherence to legal protocols for addressing grievances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable, and the Adjudicating Authority's Order did not warrant any interference.
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.
Properties acquired before the commission of an alleged offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and due process must be followed in such proceedings.
The High Court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is available, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
The High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when effective alternative remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available; exceptions apply in cases of jurisdictional errors, frau....
While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate....
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.