IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Govinda Rao & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Represented By Its Director of Enforcement & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Crl) Nos.595 of 2024, 601 of 2024, 731 of 2024 and 721 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2025
(A) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 5(1), 5(2), 5(5), 8(1), 8(2), 8(4), 8(5) - Writ petitions challenging provisional attachment of properties - Petitioners, involved in shipbuilding contract, alleged to have committed fraud and money laundering - Court held that writ petitions are not maintainable due to availability of statutory remedies and the nature of the proceedings under the Act. (Paras 12, 20, 26)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when an efficacious alternate remedy is available, except in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the provisional attachment of properties worth Rs.12,20,48,611/- under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, alleging illegal prosecution and stay of predicate offences.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the objection regarding maintainability of writ petitions, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of writ petitions in light of statutory remedies and the implications of the stay on predicate offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory provisions form a self-contained code and the existence of an alternate remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
The common prayers in these writ petitions are as follows:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature of a declaration quashing Ext.P11 order in ECIR/KCZO/04/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner freezing the accounts enumerated in paragraph 14.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature of a declaration quashing Ext.P12 and the proceedings in ECIR/KCZO/04/2021 now pending before the 3rd respondent.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature of a declaration quashing Ext.P14 order and the proceedings in ECIR/KCZO/04/2021 now pending before the 3rd respondent.”
2. The petitioner in W.P(Crl) No.595/2024 was a non-shareholding CEO and consultant of a family owned private limited company by name 'Vipul Shipyard Pvt. Ltd' (VSPL), having its shipyard in Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Petitioner in W.P(Crl) No.731/2024 is 'Vipul Shipping Engineering Works' and petitioner No.2 is a partner of the company. The petitioner in W.P(Crl) No.601/2024 was also a partner of the company. The petitioner in W.P(Crl) No.721/2024 is 'Vipul Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.', represented by its Director.
3. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration (UTLA), headed by its Administrator, is responsible for procurement and construction of water vessels for the use of UTLA. The landing barges are used to transport passengers and cargoes between the Lakshadweep Islands and the mainland. The Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, in 2006 accorded sanction to UTLA for acquisition of two landing barges through open tender process. Pursuant to this, the Shipping Corporation of India floated a tender bearing No.T&S/NB/UTLA/2000PAS/LB/2006 dated 04.04.2006, on behalf of UTLA inviting offers from experienced shipyards for constructing Six, 200 PAX Passenger Landing Barges. In response to the tender four firms submitted their bids, and two were shortlisted and after technical scrutiny, VSPL turned out to be L-1. The construction agreement with M/s VSPL, Surat was not executed till 20.10.2007. In July 2007, VSPL informed the Shipping Corporation of India that their Surat yard was being taken over by a company named 'ABG Shipyard Pvt.Ltd,' but, they could fulfil the contract with UTLA in their Goa yard. In August 2007, the acquisition process was completed and VSPL, Surat yard was taken over by ABG Shipyard. The company started the building of the vessels in terms of the contract. Payments were made in instalments.
4. In 2010, a team of UTLA officials conducted inspection on the vessels under construction at VSPL, Goa and found that the dimensions of the vessels were not acceptable to UTLA.
5. Based on a letter received from Sri. Vadodaria Karanjeet, Director of Lakshadweep Administration, the CBI ACB, Cochin conducted a preliminary enquiry vide PE No.2/2014, dated 17.10.2014. The letter received from Sri. Vadodaria Karanjeet alleged criminal negligence and strong suspicion of malpractices and corruption by the officials of Lakshadweep Administration, Shipping Corporation of India Limited (SCIL) and M/s VSPL in the matter of construction of two landing barges. The CBI submitted FIR alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.ECIR/KCZO/04/2021 was recorded for investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). After completing the investigation, the CBI submitted final report in the matter. In the final report, CBI levelled the following charges:
“1. SRII invited M/s Vipul shipyard, Surat to sign the ship building contract. Shri Mohan Rao (Petitioner), CEO of M/s. Vipul Shipyard Surat, and Shri Vipul Amin, Authorized Director of M/s. Vipul Shipyard Private Limited, Goa, hatched a conspiracy to cheat UTL in the matter of constructing a
Writ petitions challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act are not maintainable due to the availability of statutory remedies.
The court affirmed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides a self-contained legal framework, requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions.
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.
Provisional attachment order - Act itself does not provide any opportunity of hearing to concerned party prior to passing of order of provisions attached under Section 5 of Act. Rightly so as after o....
Provisional Attachment Orders must have justified legal grounding, requiring explicit evidence of connections to alleged criminal activity, and prior judicial conclusions limit enforcement authority ....
The main legal principle established is that properties to be proceeded against under PMLA must be connected to the criminal activity, and ex facie illegal acts can be interfered with under Article 2....
Properties acquired prior to the commission of a predicate offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, as they do not constitute proceeds of crime.
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.