Ssrividhya v. The Chairperson Authority

Delhi High Court · 08 Aug 2016 · 2016:DHC:8435-DB
Chief Justice Sangita H. Shahgal
LPA 443/2016
2016:DHC:8435-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against an interlocutory order directing re-notification of a writ petition challenging jurisdiction and maintainability issues under the PMLA, holding such order is not appealable.

Full Text
Translation output
$-48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 443/2016 & CM No.28554/2016
Date ofDecision: 08.08.2016 SSRIVIDHYA ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Amav Dash, Adv.
VERSUS
THE HON'BLE CHAIRFERSb1f,-ADJlJn^^^^^ AUTHORITY & ^ ^ Op _,^-:-}Re^ondents
/f '^jftrough: Sanjeev/^^laJi^GSC with
//• OO' KalraV'AdvKfor UOI
CORAM: #
HON'BLE THi: CHIEF JUST]0^|f|ft#
HON'BLE MSi JUSTICE SANGITtlMNGRA SEHGAlij ;s iifi y a H y v. 11
MS. G. ROHINt CHIEF JUSTP^lORilL) | CM No. 28553/2016
Allowed, subjedt.tpcall'jusLexeeptions'.;'.,; V
"AT ' i f " LPA No. 443/2016
JUDGMENT

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 5214/2016.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. Admittedly, W.P.(C) No.5214/2016 is still pending and by the order under appeal the petition was directed to be re-notified on 23.08.2016 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein to make his LPA 443/2016 Page I of[2] 2016:DHC:8435-DB submissions on the objection raised by the respondents that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The other objection was that no writ petition can be maintained impugning a mere show cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

4. While re-notifying the petition to 23.08.2016, the learned Single Judge made it clear that there is no stay of proceedings and the petitioners shall appear before the statutory authorities as directed and the statutory authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

5. The said order, in.ouf^considered opimdn^.cannot be termed as a "judgment" against which(ian'^appeal^an be maintaihe[4] under the Letters ^ -V Patent and therefdfejCoh thaf;°;;gr0und'iritself the appealLis liable to be dismissed.,# ^ ^ %

6. It is also h'rought to our nofip|b^|l|ei4barned counsel appearing for the *! fi '^51I'll j| il 'ij respondents that the appellant haV^mdvedl a fresh applicatidn in the writ. Ipetition seeking'Stay ofproceedmgs:|efore the Adjudicating.(^tithority under PMLA and the same is als'd'irsfed-breforfemCle Judge today. P

7. Viewed from '•^y.^^gle^theappeal Jjs-:uSisc^nh'efiyeu and the same is accordingly dismissed.

CHIEE JUSTICE SANGIT< tlASEHGAL J. AUGUST 08, 2016// gr//