Back
Karnataka High Court Dismisses JSW Steel's PMLA Attachment Challenge for No Natural Justice Violation
A division bench of the has dismissed 's challenging an order of the under the that refused to the company's case back to the . The bench, comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf, held that the alleged violation of was not made out and that the company could raise all its contentions before the , where the appeals are still pending.
A Bypass to the Appellate Route
The case stems from a FIR registered in against G Janardhana Reddy and others for illegal iron ore mining. The provisionally attached bank accounts of totalling Rs 24.37 crore in , claiming the amount represented from illegally mined iron ore supplied to the company. The confirmed the in . appealed to the , but when the Tribunal declined to the matter on the ground that had been ignored, the company rushed to the High Court.
The court, however, found the petitions premature.
"The appeals filed by the petitioner are pending and the
has allowed the petitioner to make all submissions on facts and law,"
the bench observed.
"Against an order which does not
or affect a party, no writ petition or
petition can be maintained."
No Breach in Overlook
argued that the had not considered its and , thereby violating . The company relied on the 's decision in to argue that such a defect cannot be cured at the appellate stage.
The High Court disagreed. It held that
does not require every submission to be reproduced or expressly dealt with.
"The principle of
does not invariably require a separate right to file
or
/arguments nor does it require the Court/Authority to reproduce or expressly deal with every submission,"
the judgment stated.
"The essential requirement is that the affected person must receive a
to know the case against him and to present the defence."
The court further noted that the petitioner had already filed a reply to the
and was heard by the
.
"Non-mentioning of a separately filed
would not actually amount to breach of
,"
it added.
High Court Calls Out 'Tactic' to Delay Proceedings
The bench observed that
had already approached the
against the same
order in a separate proceeding, where the apex court in
Ltd vs Enforcement Directorate
(
) had refused to interfere and directed the company to pursue its statutory remedies. The High Court termed the present petitions a
"
."
"The very fact that the
has declined to
the case on the alleged violation of
would not justify interference under
or under
,"
the court held.
"When further adjudication is still pending and before final order is passed, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and has obtained the
as a
rather than any
caused to it."
Precedents on
The court relied on the 's rulings in Union of India vs Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) and Union of India vs Amrik Singh (1991) to clarify that is not an absolute requirement of and that all cannot be imported in cases of special enactments like the PMLA.
"The duty of an Authority/Court is of
of the submissions and need not answer every argument in elaborate detail,"
the judgment explained.
Decision and Implications
The were dismissed without costs. The court directed that pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The ruling reaffirms that a litigant cannot bypass the by invoking the High Court's on grounds of alleged violations, especially when the appellate body is already seized of the matter and has permitted full hearing. The practical effect is that must now argue its appeals before the on merits, without the benefit of a order.
Key Observation:
"When the petitioner has been permitted to make all submissions on facts and law by the
, the grievance of the petitioner that the
ought to have remanded the matter back at the threshold stage is wholly untenable."
