Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Krishna Shantaram Chamankar, Prasanna Shantaram Chamankar, and K.S. Chamankar Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging attachment orders passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement. The petition was filed against the Union of India, the Deputy Director (PMLA), and the State of Maharashtra. The matter was reserved for judgment on 2nd September 2025. However, on the date of pronouncement, the petitioners were absent, and no written submissions had been filed on their behalf despite the matter being adjourned multiple times. The court noted that the petitioners had not shown any interest in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The court held that it cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely when the petitioners fail to appear or advance arguments. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Rajesh S. Patil.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Non-Prosecution - Writ Petition - Petitioners failed to appear or file written submissions despite multiple adjournments - Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution - Held that the court cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely when the petitioners show no interest in prosecuting the case (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to appear or file written submissions.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Dismissal for default
- Non-prosecution
- Writ petition
- PMLA attachment
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 156
Writ Petition No. 3400 of 2025
A.S. Gadkari, Rajesh S. Patil
Mr. Shreeyash Lalit (Through V.C.) a/w Ms. Shweta R. Rathod i/b Elixir Legal Services for Petitioners, Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent No.2, Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.3, State
Krishna Shantaram Chamankar, Prasanna Shantaram Chamankar, K.S. Chamankar Enterprises
Union of India, Deputy Director (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to challenge the attachment of properties by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the attachment orders passed under PMLA.
Issues
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to appear or file written submissions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners failed to appear or file written submissions despite multiple adjournments.
Ratio Decidendi
When the petitioners fail to appear or advance arguments despite multiple adjournments, the court cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely and must dismiss the petition for non-prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are absent. No written submissions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners.
The matter was reserved for judgment on 2nd September 2025. Today, when the matter is called out, the petitioners are absent.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed and heard. On 2nd September 2025, the matter was reserved for judgment. On 16th September 2025, when the judgment was to be pronounced, the petitioners were absent and no written submissions were filed. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
