R. Subramanian v. The Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 04 Feb 2019 · 2019:DHC:7769
Vibhu Bakhru
W.P.(C) 5205/2016
2019:DHC:7769
constitutional appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order for lack of territorial jurisdiction, allowing withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate court.

Full Text
Translation output
■_ J r' y\
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5205/2016
RSUBRAMANIAN petitioner
Through: Mr Shailesh Poddar, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE HONBLE CHAIRPERSON, ADJUDICATING AUTHOPvITY&ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr Dhrup Pande, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
04.02.2019 CMNo.5126/2019
ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the application seeking restoration of the petition, which was dismissed in default on 18.12.2018.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the petition is restored. W.P.(CI 5205/2016

3. Mr Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the petitioner is in Chennai; the property sought to be attached is in Tamil Nadu, the officer who has passed the provisional attachment order is located in Chennai; and the FIR has been registered in Bengaluru. He submits that imthe aforesaid view, it would be apposite if the petitioner is relegajed to avail of his remedies, if any, before the appropriate Court. Fie has also refened to the decision of the Division Bench in /insntu 2019:DHC:7769 i} Mohammed Farooq & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.: W.P.(C) 12494/2018,decided on 05.12.2018in support ofhis contention.

4. In view ofthe aforesaid judgment,learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail of his remedies before the appropriate court.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

VIBHU BAKHRU,J FEBRUARY 04,2019 MK