(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section – 17(1) – Money Laundering – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Single judge allow writ and defreeze account – Writ appeal – The authorities seizing/freezing of the record is required to file an application requesting for retention of the record of property or the order of freezing served under Sub-Section (1A) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 to the adjudicating authority – The Original Application filed by the ED to the adjudicating authority, did not contain, the numbers of the disputed Bank Accounts of the writ petitioners. – Held: The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in directing de-freezing of 5(4+1) Bank Accounts, because the continued embargo on the operation thereof by the Banks concerned on purported instruction of the ED clearly amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the Account holders, i.e. respondents/writ petitioners as enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (Para 14, 15)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of statutory remedy and transgression of the fundamental rights – Held: The availability of statutory remedy cannot act to the detriment of a litigant when the writ jurisdiction of the Court is invoked in the matter wherein there is clear transgression of the fundamental rights of a citizen. (Para 18)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023 STPL(Web) 39 Gauhati
[GAHC010116332023]
Directorate Of Enforcement, Rep. By Sri Jayant Choudhary Vs. Zoramthari, Proprietor Of M/S Thari Enterprises
WA 311 of 2023 and WA 314 of 2023-Decided on 14-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-39-Gauhati.pdf
