Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Sundarlal Jain, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that vacated an attachment order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The respondent no.1, Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd., objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, which he failed to avail within the limitation period. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1, and respondent no.2 (Directorate of Enforcement). The court noted that the statutory remedy of appeal was available and the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the NCLT order had become final. The court held that in such circumstances, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - The court held that where a statutory remedy of appeal is available and has not been availed within the limitation period, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The order of NCLT vacating the attachment order under PMLA had attained finality due to non-filing of appeal. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) vacating an attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition
- alternative remedy
- statutory appeal
- limitation period
- finality of order
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 46
Writ Petition No. 11982 of 2023
Sunil B. Shukre, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Mr. Yogesh Naidu i/b Mr. Ishan Srivastava for the Petitioner, Dr. Sujay Kantawala i/b Mr. Jain for the Respondent no.1, Mr. Shreeram Shirsat a/w Mr. S.V. Mane and Ms. Adithi Rao for the Respondent no.2
Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. and Directorate of Enforcement
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of NCLT vacating an attachment order under PMLA.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge the NCLT order vacating the attachment order.
Filing Reason
Petitioner did not avail statutory appeal under Section 421 of Companies Act, 2013 within limitation period.
Previous Decisions
NCLT passed an order vacating the attachment order under PMLA, which became final due to non-filing of appeal.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent no.1 argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within limitation, and the NCLT order has attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available and has not been availed within the limitation period, and the order sought to be challenged has become final.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel for the Respondent no.1 has taken a strong objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the statutory remedy of appeal available to a person like the Petitioner has not been availed of within the limitation period provided therefor, and as such, the order of National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT') vacating the attachment order passed by adjudicating authority under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), has now attained finality.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an NCLT order. The respondent no.1 raised an objection regarding maintainability. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
- Companies Act, 2013: Section 421
