Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU
Siva Industries and Holdings Limited – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. analysis of claims made under pmla act (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments supporting the legitimate claim of the second respondent (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's consideration of the restoration order under pmla (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. interpretation of pmla provisions regarding restoration of properties (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final judgment allowing revision (Para 22) |
ORDER :
K. Kumaresh Babu, J.
The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 made in Crl.MP.No.1053 of 2025 in Spl.C.C.No.02 of 2021
2. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.S.Ravi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Cibi Vishnu, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. Mr.Vijaya Naryan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been embroiled in various litigations including the proceedings under PMLA Act. He would submit that the appellant had independently borrowed monies from the second respondent and had also stood as a guarantor for the third respon
Restoration of assets under the PMLA requires adherence to procedural mandates, specifically necessitating completion of charge framing before claims can be approved.
(1) Attachment and confiscation of property – Special Court cannot go into issues which higher forums have been entrusted with.(2) Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of PMLA are stand-alone provisions – S....
The impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and PMLA Rule, 2016, and was set aside.
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.
Withdrawal of insolvency petition on settlement bars restoration on default; liberty clause permits fresh proceedings or execution for balance, not revival of closed matter.
A bona fide purchaser at auction is protected, and a writ petition challenging the confirmation of sale is not maintainable if filed beyond the statutory period.
The court emphasized that parties cannot take advantage of the dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution and allowed the applications filed by the appellants to restore the status quo ante in th....
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
