- (1.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not permit the Enforcement Directorate to stop the functioning of the business of the petitioners. The impugned actions are such that they prevent the petitioners from carrying on their business. The petitioners did not receive any notice under Section 5 of the Act of 2002. His clients were informed by one of the banks that, an Assistant Directorate of the Enforcement Directorate communicated an order of prohibition of withdrawal/transfer of the accounts. He submits that, Assistant Directorate has no jurisdiction to do so under the Act of 2002. As an interim measure, the petitioners should be allowed to carry on their regular business. Enforcement Directorate and the Banks are represented. Learned advocate appearing for the banks submits that, the accounts maintained by the petitioners were declared as non-performing assets.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the erstwhile Dena Bank submits that, the petitioners obtained credit facilities, inter alia, on the pledge of movables including Volvo Buses. On enquiry, the bank found the chassis and the Police registration numbers to be fake. Complaints were made to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that, the complaint received from the Central Bureau of Investigation is under investigation. In the process of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate requested the banks to stop the withdrawal/transfer in the accounts. He submits that, the petitioners are at liberty to make deposits in the concerned bank accounts without having the liberty to withdraw or transfer any amount from such bank accounts. He relies upon a judgment dated March 30, 2015 passed in F.M.A. No.4031 of 2014 with CAN No.11477 of 2014 (Rose Valley Real Estate and Constructions Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) and submits that, it recognizes the authority of Enforcement Directorate to issue an order of prohibition in the manner as contained in the present case. Therefore, there is no lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Enforcement Directorate in making the order as contained in the present case. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to permit the parties to file affidavit. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed with four weeks from date. Affidavit-in-reply, if any thereto, be filed within two weeks thereafter. The writ petition will be treated as ready for hearing immediately on expiry of the time period stipulated for filing affidavits. The parties are at liberty to mention for early hearing. ;