#delhicourt Archives - Prime Legal

1 Oct

Delhi High Court Navigates Quorum Quandaries and Remedies in PMLA Appeals

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #moneylaundering, #pmla, #quorum

Case Title: Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Date of Decision: 19th September 2023

Case Number: LPA 167/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

Introduction

This case involves an appeal against a judgment passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The appellant, Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd, challenged an order by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which denied their application for deferment of proceedings. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority was not properly constituted at the time. This appeal aims to contest the Single Judge’s decision upholding the Adjudicating Authority’s order.

Factual Background

The case arose when the State Bank of India filed a complaint in August 2020 alleging the diversion of funds by the accused for purposes other than those the funds were availed for. An FIR was subsequently registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2022 for various offenses. The appellant was not initially named as an accused in this FIR. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against the appellant and others, followed by a Provisional Attachment Order in September 2022. The ED filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority in October 2022 for the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order.

The appellant also mentioned that a chargesheet related to the predicate offense had been filed by the CBI. The appellant then filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which is the subject of this appeal, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority lacked a proper quorum as required under the PMLA and that they had not been supplied with a copy of ‘Reasons to Believe’ by the ED, which led to the Provisional Attachment Order.

Legal Issues

Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the required quorum under the PMLA.
Whether the appellant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition.
Whether the application for deferment of proceedings was maintainable.
Whether the Provisional Attachment Order was justified under the PMLA.

Contentions

Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the required quorum as specified under the PMLA. They also contended that their application should not have been rejected without a proper hearing, and a single-member bench was not in accordance with the PMLA.
Respondent’s Argument: The ED argued that the application was not maintainable, as the Appellate Tribunal provided an alternative remedy. They also defended the validity of the Provisional Attachment Order and the composition of the Adjudicating Authority.

Observation and Analysis

The court reviewed the Provisional Attachment Order and the complaint, finding that the Order was based on a detailed analysis of various documents and materials. It concluded that the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient grounds to believe that the appellant possessed proceeds of crime.

The court also clarified that the PMLA allows for the formation of single-member benches, citing precedent from an earlier case (J Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors). The application filed by the appellant requesting a two-member bench was deemed not maintainable.

Decision of the Court

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, and found that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. It held that the appellant should have pursued the statutory remedies provided by the PMLA, including the option to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

29 Sep

Delhi High Court Clarifies MSME Act’s Applicability: Timing of Registration Matters

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #msme

Case Title: JKS Infrastructure Private Limited v. MSME Facilitation Council and Others

Date of Decision: 18th September 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 16567/2022

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Introduction

This case involves a petition filed by JKS Infrastructure Private Limited (the petitioner) seeking an order to set aside a reference made by the MSME Facilitation Council (Respondent No.1) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), and subsequent proceedings initiated based on the said reference. The dispute arose between the petitioner and Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions (Respondent No.3), leading to a reference to arbitration.

Facts

The petitioner, JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition seeking the setting aside of the reference UDYAM-DL-10-0032365/M/00003 dated 10th September 2022, made by Respondent No.1 (MSME Facilitation Council) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act).
The dispute arose between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 (Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions), which led to a reference to arbitration by Respondent No.1.
The petitioner argued that the MSME Act did not apply as the purchase order and invoice between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME on 8th February 2021.

Legal Issue

Whether the MSME Act is applicable when the registration as an MSME occurred after the completion of the works or services?

Contentions

The petitioner contends that the MSME Act does not apply because the purchase order and invoice were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME. This argument is based on the timing of registration relative to the contract.

Legal Principles

Registration under the MSME Act must occur before entering into a contract for the benefits of the Act to apply retroactively.
The registration’s timing determines the Act’s applicability to goods and services supplied, with the Act applying only prospectively to post-registration supplies.

Observation and Analysis

The Court considered recent judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Prakash, and M/s. Grand Mumtaz Hotel v. Deputy Commissioner North East Government of NCT of Delhi to resolve the legal issue. These judgments emphasized that registration under the MSME Act must occur before the contract and supply of goods or services for the Act’s benefits to apply. Registration after the fact does not grant retrospective benefits under the MSME Act.

Decision of the Court

In light of the legal precedent established in the aforementioned judgments, the Court ruled that if registration under the MSME Act occurs after the completion of works or the execution of the contract, the Act would not be applicable. Therefore, the impugned references were quashed. Respondents were advised to pursue remedies in accordance with the law.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

28 Sep

Jurisdictional Tug of War: Delhi High Court Weighs in on Forum Conveniens in a Recent Case

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #forumconveniens

Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 443/2023 & CM APPL. 1741/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan

Introduction

This case involves a petition filed by NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED (the petitioner) under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner seeks various reliefs related to a dispute with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others (the respondents) concerning electrification for a housing project in Gurugram, Haryana.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking, applied to the Nigam for approval of electrical load and scheme for its housing project in Gurugram in 2015.
The Nigam issued a communication in favor of the petitioner’s project in 2016 from its Delhi office.
The petitioner had agreements with respondent No. 3 for sharing infrastructure for electrification.

A dispute arose when the Nigam issued a letter in 2022 stating that forming a group for sharing the switching station with respondent No. 3 was not technically feasible.

Legal Issues

The main legal issue is whether the High Court of Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s case under Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution, considering the cause of action and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that since part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, it should maintain jurisdiction.
The respondents contended that they are not within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, and the cause of action did not substantially arise there.

Observation and Analysis

Article 226(2) allows High Courts to exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within their territorial jurisdiction.
The doctrine of forum conveniens states that a High Court may decline jurisdiction if the proceedings are more closely connected to another High Court.

Several judgments, including Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., and Sterling Agro Industries vs Union of India, emphasized the importance of forum conveniens in exercising jurisdiction.
The cause of action in this case, related to electrification of a project in Gurugram, is intimately connected to the State of Haryana.
The issuance of the communication in Delhi was considered a “slender part of the cause of action.”

Decision of the Court

The court considered the concept of “forum conveniens” and noted that the cause of action was primarily related to the project’s electrification in Gurugram, Haryana, which fell outside the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction. The court cited relevant precedents and emphasized that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, it may not necessarily confer jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the doctrine of forum conveniens, as the case was more closely connected to Haryana. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the appropriate court with the same cause of action.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

28 Sep

Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation of School Security Tenders: Key Takeaways and Compensation Rights

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #tender

Case Title: M/S Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Decision: 27th September, 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 12314/2023

Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Introduction

This case involves a dispute between three security services companies (Petitioners) and the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) regarding the cancellation of tenders issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) for the deployment of security personnel in government schools in Delhi. The Petitioners had won these tenders, but the DoE annulled the process, leading to the cancellation of the contracts. The Petitioners challenged this decision in the High Court of Delhi.

Factual Background

DoE issued tenders for security services in government schools in Delhi.
Petitioners emerged as successful bidders in the tender process.
Previous legal challenges were raised against the initial tenders, but the DoE decided to reissue new tenders.

Petitioners submitted bids and were awarded contracts.
Deployment was scheduled to start on 10th August 2023.
The DoE halted the process and later canceled the tenders on the grounds that certain bidders had provided false information regarding their qualifications.

Legal Issues

The key legal issues in this case are:

Whether the cancellation of the tender process by DoE was justified.
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation for the losses incurred due to the cancellation.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners argued that DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders was arbitrary and lacked justification.
DoE contended that the cancellation was necessary due to misleading information provided by certain bidders, which compromised the integrity of the process.

Observation and Analysis

The court’s analysis focuses on the integrity of the tendering process, emphasizing that transparency, fairness, and competitiveness are fundamental values of any tendering process. It highlights the fact that some bidders had provided misleading information, leading to the inclusion of unqualified participants in the competition. The court finds that this compromised the integrity of the entire procedure and justifies the DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders. It also noted that the Petitioners’ claim for compensation should be pursued through civil proceedings.

Decision of the Court

The High Court upheld the DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders, finding it justified given the compromised integrity of the process. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the Petitioners to seek compensation through civil proceedings.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

27 Sep

Delhi High Court Upholds Travel Restriction in Bail Conditions: Balancing Freedom and Investigation Integrity

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, bail

Case Title: Disha A. Ravi vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Date of Decision: 26.09.2023

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5914/2023 & CRL. M.A. 22214/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Introduction

Disha A. Ravi, the petitioner, sought the setting aside of an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. This order sought the modification of bail conditions imposed on the petitioner earlier in a case arising from FIR No. 49/2021 registered at the Special Cell, New Delhi, under Sections 124A/153/153A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Factual Background

The case originated from allegations of a concerted campaign by banned terror organizations to disrupt the Republic Day national ceremony. A Google Document (“toolkit”) was shared on Twitter, allegedly containing plans for a larger conspiracy against India. The toolkit promoted material circulated by a Canada-based organization, and it called for protests outside Indian Embassies. Vandalism occurred outside the Indian Embassy in Rome, Italy, and violence erupted in Delhi on Republic Day, causing substantial damage. The petitioner was arrested on 13.02.2021, granted bail on 23.02.2021, and had been required to seek court permission before traveling abroad.

Legal Issues

The primary issue before the court was whether the condition of obtaining prior court permission for foreign travel, as imposed in the bail order, violated the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that the condition of seeking court permission for foreign travel was inconvenient and sought modification to inform the court instead.
The State contended that the condition was necessary to ensure cooperation during ongoing investigations and to prevent any hindrance to future investigations.

Observation and Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner and the conditions imposed in the bail order.
It emphasized the balance between an individual’s right to travel and the State’s interest in conducting investigations and protecting the proceedings.
The court noted that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in criminal cases.
It referred to precedents highlighting that inconvenience to the accused cannot be the sole reason for deleting a reasonable condition imposed by the court.
The court concluded that the condition was a rational restriction meant to secure the petitioner’s presence and ensure the integrity of the investigation.

Decision of the Court

The court rejected the petitioner’s request to delete the bail condition requiring prior court permission for foreign travel. However, it directed that the petitioner should apply for permission at least one month in advance, allowing the court to consider the plea and the State’s response promptly. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3 … 14