Self Employers Service Society, Reg No K-705/97, Represented By, Its General Secretary, Kuruvila Thomas S/o. Thomas Pooppada vs Competent Authority, Secretary To The Government (Under Sec. 7(3) Of Banning Of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act 2019), Thiruvananthapuram

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ker) 813

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, S. MANU
Self Employers Service Society, Reg No K-705/97, Represented By, Its General Secretary, Kuruvila Thomas S/o. Thomas Pooppada – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority, Secretary To The Government (Under Sec. 7(3) Of Banning Of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act 2019), Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Advs. P.Chandrasekhar Anand Sankar Anoop Krishna C.Raman Jenny Thankam Pratheeksha Raj Regimol M.K.
For the Respondent: S Ranjith SR GP

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The competent authority under the BUDS Act has the authority to issue a provisional order of attachment without providing an exhaustive list of properties at the time of issuance, as long as the list is submitted within the statutory timeframe specified in the Act (!) (!) .
The provisional attachment order must state the reasons for the order; however, it does not require the detailed list of attached properties to be included immediately. The detailed list can be prepared and communicated later within the period allowed under Section 14 of the BUDS Act (!) .
The relevant rules prescribe that while passing the provisional order, the authority should mention the reasons and may initiate the process of preparing the list of properties, which can be communicated subsequently (!) (!) .
The order of provisional attachment is primarily a prohibitory order, and the detailed list of properties can be furnished later, within the prescribed timeframe, thus maintaining the procedural validity of the order (!) (!) .
The challenge to such provisional orders on the grounds of the absence of a property list is considered premature, as the law permits the list to be prepared and submitted within the statutory period (!) .
There is an identified ambiguity in the procedural form used for the list of attached properties, which the court has noted for possible clarification by the authorities but does not affect the legality of the provisional order passed (!) .
Overall, the court affirmed that the provisional order issued under the BUDS Act is legally sustainable even without an exhaustive property list at the time of issuance, provided that the detailed list is submitted within the statutory timeframe (!) .
The court clarified that once the provisional order is issued and the procedures under Section 14 are followed, the matter can be further addressed by the designated court, which can confirm, vary, or cancel the attachment as appropriate (!) .
The court disposed of the appeal, emphasizing that the challenge at this stage is premature and that the provisional order's procedural aspects are compliant with the law (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, ACJ.

A charitable society called Self Employees Service Society, registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, approached this Court questioning the proceedings of the competent authority constituted under the Kerala Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act). The competent authority passed a provisional order invoking Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act, provisionally attaching all movable and immovable properties belonging to the society. A reasoned order has been passed. The question raised before the Court is that whether such a provisional order, without enlisting the movable and immovable properties, is legally sustainable and whether it is in the statutory form (Form 1) or not.

2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the matter relegating the appellant/petitioner to approach the Designated Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner argued in extenso and submitted that the impugned order is per se illegal as it does not contain the list of movable and immovable properties belonging to the society. It is further argued that Rule 4 of the Kerala Banning

Click Here to Read the rest of this document