BEENA JOSE Vs. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interim order in writ petition No.9411 of 2018 is impugned in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the action of the respondents in taking steps for realisation of the amounts attached in exercise of the powers under section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed By the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge declined the prayer for stay of the aforesaid action and instead, gave liberty to the respondents to proceed with the action, making it subject to the result of the writ petition. It is this order, which is challenged before us.

(2.) We heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal filed against the order of attachment, which was confirmed by the authorities, is pending consideration of the Tribunal and it was at that stage, the impugned action was taken. He also contended that the impugned action was initiated by the respondents without even putting the appellants on notice. However, these contentions were contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who referred us to the statutory provisions and contended that the respondents are well within their powers in taking action for realisation of the amounts and that too, even without notice as complained by the appellants.