Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd vs Adjudicating Authority (Pmla) & Ors on 4 August, 2020
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1
04.08.2020 W.P. 5955 (W) of 2020
Sl. 5 (supp.) With
Sp/pk C.A.N. 4115 of 2020
(Via Video Conference)
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd.
-Versus-
Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) & Ors.
Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Deepan Sarkar,
Mr. Rustam Mulla,
Mr. Arunabha Deb,
Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty,
Mr. Harshad Guda,
Mr. Ayush Jain,
Mr. S. Kirkhabwala
.for the petitioner
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, Ld. A.S.G.,
Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri,
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee
.for the respondent nos. 2 to 4
Mr. Debu Chowdhury ..for the respondent no. 5 This writ petition is against a provisional order of attachment dated 31st January, 2020 passed by the Deputy Director, Office of the Special Director, Eastern Region, Enforcement Directorate (respondent no.2) followed by a show cause notice dated 6th March, 2020.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition today on the ground that the provisional order of attachment no longer remains in force by efflux of time under Section 5 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The prayer for withdrawal is objected to by 2 the learned Additional Solicitor General who renews his prayer for extending the order of provisional attachment by three months. Learned ASG submits that the petitioner has taken repeated adjournments on various dates when the matter was called on which are April 14, 2020, June 12, 2020, June 28, 2020 and July 14, 2020 including on the last occasion on 31st July, 2020 where time was taken on the ground of a resolution taken at the Bar. It is submitted that the petitioner allowed the petition to remain on Board with a strategy of waiting out the period of 180 days as provided under Section 5 of the PMLA. Learned ASG submits that the petitioner should not be permitted to take advantage of its conduct.
These contentions are denied on behalf of the petitioner.
On hearing learned counsel, this Court is of the view that under Section 5(1)(b) of the PMLA, an order of provisional attachment remains in force only for a period of 180 days from the date of the order passed by the Director with regard to the proceeds of crime which the concerned Director has reasons to believe are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which may frustrate any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter III of the PMLA. Section 5(3) further provides that every order of attachment made under Section 5(1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of 180 days or on the 3 date of an order made under Section 8(3) or whichever is earlier. Section 8(3) deals with a situation where the Adjudicating Authority makes an order in writing confirming the attachment of the property made under Section 5(1) or for retention of the property etc. Admittedly, no such order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority against the petitioner under Section 8(3). It should be mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority has been served with copies of the petition.
If the concerned Act provides certain windows to a party in relation to a provisional order of attachment expressed in the clear language of Section 5(1)(b), this Court cannot come in the way of the petitioner taking advantage of the said exit route. Needless to say, allowing withdrawal of this petition will not prejudice any of the rights or contentions of the parties in the event of future proceedings before this Court or any other forum.
W. P. 5955(W) of 2020 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. CAN 4115 of 2020 is also disposed of.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) 4