Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, K.RAJASEKAR, J
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC) – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Represented by Assistant Director – Respondent
Key Points: - The court upheld the validity of Section 17 searches without prior state consent under PMLA, clarifying the self-contained nature of PMLA and its preconditions for search. (!) (!) (!) - Judicial review under Section 17 is limited to ensuring that "reasons to believe" are recorded in writing; supervising courts should not re-evaluate the sufficiency of the underlying materials at this stage. (!) (!) (!) - The provisions also allow seizure, examination on oath, and collection of evidence during search; ECIR is an internal document not required to be shared with the searched party, while panchnama and digital forensics are part of the evidentiary process. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court rejected the federalism challenge and held that PMLA operates independently of state constitutions for national economic offences. (!) - Petitions challenging the search were dismissed; ED could proceed with further actions under PMLA. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed concerning the powers of investigation under pmla. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 10) |
| 2. the legal framework supporting search operations under pmla. (Para 13 , 18 , 19 , 38) |
| 3. differentiation of search from arrest regarding threshold requirements. (Para 29 , 31 , 70 , 79) |
| 4. final decisions made regarding the conduct of the enforcement directorate. (Para 85 , 90 , 96) |
COMMON ORDER
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Three writ petitions have been filed. The writ petition in W.P.No.10348 of 2025 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), seeking the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent, their men, employees, subordinates, agents or any other persons claiming or acting through or under them not to harass the officials/employees of the petitioner under the guise of investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA'].
2. The second writ petition in W.P.No.10352 of 2025 filed by TASMAC seeking a writ of declaration, in so far as it relates to the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from 06.03.2025 to 08.03.2025
The court upheld the authority of the Directorate of Enforcement to conduct searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without prior state consent, reinforcing that the right to privacy is....
(1) Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sufficiency or adequacy of information cannot be gone into by Court at this stage of search and seizure which involves collection and gathering of evidence.(2) Seizur....
Sections of CrPC would apply only if the field is not covered, in any manner, by the provisions of the special enactment by way of the PMLA.
The jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to investigate alleged money laundering in respect of offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was the main l....
The court upheld the legality of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the 'reason to believe' standard is justiciable, but not the adequacy of those grounds.
The necessity for authorities to possess credible information to form a reasonable belief before conducting search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is essential for the validity of....
The registration of an FIR is obligatory if the information provided indicates a cognizable offence, as preliminary inquiries cannot delay the registration process, particularly in cases involving sy....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
