<p>The High Court of Karnataka on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Devas Multimedia Private Limited which had challenged the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) action of attaching its property.<br /><br />ED had attached the property of Devas with regard to the multi-crore Antrix-Devas scam involving the Indian Space Research Organisation.<br /><br />The scam related to Devas alone is worth around Rs 580 crore. The CBI is investigating into the scam.<br />Devas had moved the court challenging the act of ED attaching its property, exercising the amended provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, wherein a list of ‘scheduled offences’ was included in 2009.<br /><br />The petitioner had contended that the list of scheduled offences was imposed retrospectively as the alleged offence was committed prior to the amendment, which is from the year 2006 onwards. <br />Justice B S Patil, dismissing the contentions of the petitioner, said that this is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under its writ jurisdiction can be exercised.<br /><br />Ignoring the efficacious machinery provided under the Act, the court directed the petitioner to challenge their contentions before a competent authority.<br /><br />The judge also dismissed another related petition with regard to the violation of FEMA regulations (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999).<br /> </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Devas Multimedia Private Limited which had challenged the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) action of attaching its property.<br /><br />ED had attached the property of Devas with regard to the multi-crore Antrix-Devas scam involving the Indian Space Research Organisation.<br /><br />The scam related to Devas alone is worth around Rs 580 crore. The CBI is investigating into the scam.<br />Devas had moved the court challenging the act of ED attaching its property, exercising the amended provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, wherein a list of ‘scheduled offences’ was included in 2009.<br /><br />The petitioner had contended that the list of scheduled offences was imposed retrospectively as the alleged offence was committed prior to the amendment, which is from the year 2006 onwards. <br />Justice B S Patil, dismissing the contentions of the petitioner, said that this is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under its writ jurisdiction can be exercised.<br /><br />Ignoring the efficacious machinery provided under the Act, the court directed the petitioner to challenge their contentions before a competent authority.<br /><br />The judge also dismissed another related petition with regard to the violation of FEMA regulations (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999).<br /> </p>
