<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against those associated with Vikram Investments.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order after observing non-compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act.</p>.<p>In 2018, the police registered a cheating case following complaints by investors regarding non-refund of money. Subsequently, the ED registered a money laundering case, and a provisional attachment order was issued on November 2, 2021. The ED attached the properties of the petitioners — Prahlad and others — by invoking powers under Section 5(1) of the PML Act.</p>.PTCL Act: Proceedings to restore lands already restored and sold are illegal, says Karnataka High Court.<p>However, the petitioners argued that, except for the issuance of a show-cause notice in 2022, no other orders were passed by the competent authority confirming the provisional attachment, despite the outer limit of 180 days.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the ED submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court had protected limitation periods under every statute from March 24, 2020, to October 21, 2021. Although it further argued that the 180-day period for validation should be extended, the agency admitted that, even as of date, no order has been passed confirming the provisional attachment.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that Section 5(1)(b) of the Act itself mandates that a provisional attachment would be effective only for a period of 180 days from the date of the order.</p>.<p>"This is not limitation for filing of a case, or otherwise to a litigant, it is the period of validation. If the order is not passed within 180 days, the statute itself would mandate that the order would be a nullity, and the order which is in nullity cannot be given a breather by extending the limitation period, as it is done by the Supreme Court during the Covid pandemic,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said: "The show-cause notices so issued as a consequence thereof, stand obliterated. The petitioners shall become entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders of provisional attachment."</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against those associated with Vikram Investments.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order after observing non-compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act.</p>.<p>In 2018, the police registered a cheating case following complaints by investors regarding non-refund of money. Subsequently, the ED registered a money laundering case, and a provisional attachment order was issued on November 2, 2021. The ED attached the properties of the petitioners — Prahlad and others — by invoking powers under Section 5(1) of the PML Act.</p>.PTCL Act: Proceedings to restore lands already restored and sold are illegal, says Karnataka High Court.<p>However, the petitioners argued that, except for the issuance of a show-cause notice in 2022, no other orders were passed by the competent authority confirming the provisional attachment, despite the outer limit of 180 days.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the ED submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court had protected limitation periods under every statute from March 24, 2020, to October 21, 2021. Although it further argued that the 180-day period for validation should be extended, the agency admitted that, even as of date, no order has been passed confirming the provisional attachment.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that Section 5(1)(b) of the Act itself mandates that a provisional attachment would be effective only for a period of 180 days from the date of the order.</p>.<p>"This is not limitation for filing of a case, or otherwise to a litigant, it is the period of validation. If the order is not passed within 180 days, the statute itself would mandate that the order would be a nullity, and the order which is in nullity cannot be given a breather by extending the limitation period, as it is done by the Supreme Court during the Covid pandemic,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said: "The show-cause notices so issued as a consequence thereof, stand obliterated. The petitioners shall become entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders of provisional attachment."</p>