HC quashes writ petition filed against the order for confiscation of money as facts were to be investigated to cull out the truth

Case Details: D. Naresh Kumar v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Chennai - [2022] 135 taxmann.com 114 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • S.M. Subramaniam, J.
  • A. Tamilvanan for the Petitioner. 
  • N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the writ petition was filed challenging the Adjudication Order passed by the respondent. The order of adjudication was issued under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

The petitioner filed a writ petition against said order contending that money confiscated from his manager belonged to the petitioner and he made a claim for return of property but Adjudicating Authority had not considered facts and circumstances and rejected the claim.

High Court Held

The High Court held that if the petitioner claimed that he was the owner of money, it was for him to initiate appropriate steps before the authority and the High Court could not issue a direction to provide an opportunity to writ petitioner in adjudicatory process, wherein admittedly money was not confiscated from petitioner but from his Manager.

The High Court further observed that since facts were to be investigated and a trial was required for purpose of culling the out truth behind allegations, such an elaborate adjudication could not be done in writ proceedings and, therefore, property, which was confiscated by Enforcement Directorate, could not be released and opinion formed by authorities in adjudicatory process was not to be interfered with by Court in the writ petition. The petitioner could prefer an appeal in a prescribed format and complying with procedures as contemplated under Act.