EAST INDIA ENTERPRISE THRO PROPRIETOR RAJESHBHAI BHOLABHAI RAMANI Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Service of notice of rule is waived by learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners had made prayer in paragraph-10(B) to vacate the Provisional Attachment Order : PAO / MBZO-II / 02 / 2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Director, Mumbai Zonal Office-II, Directorate of Enforcement, respondent No.2 herein, under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA") whereby, the movable properties, i.e. 6170 Nos. of commercial vehicles of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Logistic Limited (Corporate Debtor), have been provisionally attached under the provisions of the PMLA for a period of 180 days from the date of the order with the further condition that the said properties shall not be removed, parted with or otherwise, dealt with, without the prior permission from the said authority. 2.1 Learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the petitioners referring to the order passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.280 of 2021 between Raman Roadways Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, submitted that a petition with similar facts was moved before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the matter of Provisional Attachment dated 18.06.2019 in relation to movable properties of 6170 vehicles of the Corporate Debtor was dealt with. She stated that 4826 trucks which had been taken away by the Official Liquidator of the Company In Liquidation under the provisions of the Insolvency and Banking Code, 2016 (for short, "the IB Code") was ordered to be released by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA by order dated 03.12.2019 passed in O.C. No. 1160 of 2019 before which the complaint was filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, where the Official Liquidator had filed his objections / reply. Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that since the Provisional Attachment Order has been removed, she does not press for the relief sought for in paragraph-10(B) of the petition. 2.2 The petitioners have also prayed to issue appropriate directions to the respondent - Regional Transport Offices to complete the proceedings of transfer of the vehicles purchased by the petitioners from the Court appointed Official Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.

(3.) The facts, in a nutshell, are as under :-