DAVY VARGHESE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A septuagenarian, who claims to be suffering from a terminal illness, along with his wife, has approached this Court seeking to quash the order of provisional attachment issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act'). According to the petitioners, by the attachment, they have been wholly crippled to even manage the day-to-day living as all their immovable properties, bank accounts and all their vehicles have been attached.

(2.) Petitioners allege that their family has business interests in hosiery, textiles and chit funds apart from real estate. They contend that loans were availed by them from financial institutions for their business activities and were regularly repaying them as well. According to the petitioners, in the year 2015, they approached the Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank No.112 (for short 'the Bank') for an overdraft facility for their business ventures. After satisfaction of the security offered, which included their residential property, a total loan of Rs.3.49 Crores was granted in the name of the first petitioner and his four business associates. Petitioners allege that the security offered by them was far more valuable than the amounts availed as overdraft facility and the present market value of the mortgaged property is more than Rs.8.5 Crores.

(3.) In the meantime, petitioners learnt from the media that some irregularities were detected at the bank relating to the disbursement of loans to other persons and an investigation was being conducted. While so, petitioners received summons from the first respondent requiring their presence and production of documents relating to the loans availed by them, which were duly complied with. Petitioners allege that during the enquiry they were made to sign certain statements dictated by the officials of the first respondent and later they were served with a provisional order of attachment dtd. 13/10/2023 bearing No.05/2023. The order attached five of their immovable properties - four belonging to the second petitioner and one that of the first petitioner apart from the motorcar of the second petitioner and the bank accounts held by them. Petitioners allege that the provisional attachment order is manifestly illegal, without jurisdiction or authority and have hence approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.