Jharkhand High Court
State Bank Of India Represented Thr Its ... vs Union Of India Through Enforcement ... on 25 July, 2016
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 365 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 1637 of 2016
In
L.P.A. No. 642 of 2015
State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 (Act. No. 23 of 1955), having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai400 021 and its Local Head Office at West Gandhi
Maidan, Patna and one of its Branch Office viz. Commercial BranchJamshedpur
amongst others at "Pratap Tower", JRoad, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur,
Jamshedpur831 001, District Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand, represented
through its Assistant General Manager & Relationship Manager (AMTI) Pradip
Kumar Sarkar, son of late Chitta Ranjan Sarkar, resident of 'Hans Bhavan'
(2nd Floor), 'N' Road, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum ... Appellant
Versus
1.Union of India through Enforcement Director under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Govt. of India, Lucknow Zonal Office, 57A, Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow226 001, U.P.
2. M/s. Shivans Steel Pvt. Ltd., having Registered Office at Room No. 100, Basement, Centre Point 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 001 and Corporate Office at Flat No.23, 4th Floor, Raja Apartment, Ward No.10, MNAC, PS Mango, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand831 012
3. Sri Madhu Koda, son of Shri Rasika Koda, resident of Village Pata Hatu, P.O. & P.S. Jaganathpur, District Singhbhum (West) ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate 09/ Dated: 25 July, 2016 th Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J.:
I.A. No. 365 of 2016
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 19 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 19 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 365 of 2016 stands allowed and disposed of.
2 L.P.A. No. 642 of 2015
4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that under Section 8 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002, the order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No. 76 of 2010 dated 6th April, 2011. This order was about attachment of the property of the defaulter of the appellantBank. The said order is at Annexure1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsels for both the sides that the appellantBank was not at all aware about the attachment order passed by the Authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002. The property attached was a mortgaged property. The Bank is vitally interested on the auction of the said property. Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, this proceeding has also not been initiated by the State Bank of India. The property is situated in the State of Jharkhand and the State Bank of India is also having branches in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, whole cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand.
6. Now, appeal has also been preferred by the appellant under Section 26 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant vide order dated 12th November, 2014 which is at Annexure2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
7. Much has been argued out by the learned counsel for the appellant about the jurisdiction of this Court. It appears that this Court has jurisdiction because the property attached under Section 8 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 is situated within the State of Jharkhand. The State Bank of India is having several branches within the State of Jharkhand. Thus, cause of action 3 has arisen in the State of Jharkhand and this Court has power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties.
8. It further appears that under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, especially first explanation thereof, this Court has power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties to this Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) No. 2363 of 2015 vide order dated 24th August, 2015. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2363 of 2015 dated 24th August, 2015. The appellant will prefer statutory appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 as the statutory appeal is available. We see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. As and when appeal is preferred by the appellant, the same will be decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge W.P.(C) No. 2363 of 2015 vide order dated 24th August, 2015. The appellant will avail efficacious alternative remedy, as stated hereinabove.
9. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of. I.A. No. 1637 of 2016
10. Accordingly, this interlocutory application also stands disposed of, in view of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Ajay/