Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In its order the Delhi High Court has held that the discretion under Article 226 should not be exercised when the conduct of the persons invoking the jurisdiction is not genuine or bona fide. Relief was not granted to a person facing serious allegations of money laundering and was prima facie found to be not co-operating with the investigation. This judgment was passed in the matter of the writ petition by Wave Hospitality Pvt Ltd, challenging a provisional attachment order passed by the competent statutory authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Petitioner in the case claimed that, property attached by Enforcement Directorate was valued at more than Rs. 120 crores and was a gross misuse and blatant abuse of the provisions of law. They also challenged certain provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, and also said that they were ultra vires of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Centre challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy. It was also stated that Article 226 was a discretionary power. The Centre also stated and asked the Court to pierce the corporate veil and the fact that there was a misuse of the law.It was further stated that the proceeds of crime were invested in the petitioner and other companies and the property acquired was nothing but proceeds of crime.
Keeping everything in mind, the Court decided that, the remedy under Article 226 was a remedy in equity and can berefused in case the conduct of the parties or persons invoking jurisdiction are not genuine or bona fide and the possibilities of misusing the process of law could not be ruled out. Lastly, it was added that,the order could be challenged in accordance with the law and also refused to grant any interim relief in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824