M/S Kanishk Gold Pvt. Ltd Through Its Director v. Union Of India And ORS

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9068/2018 and CM APPL. 34914/2018 M/S KANISHK GOLD PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ..... Petitioner Through:

Counsel (appearance not given).

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Ms Mallika Hiremath, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 10.01.2019 1.

At the outset, it is pointed out by Mr Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondents that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Aasma Mohammed Farooq and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 12494/2018, the present petition ought not to be entertained by this Court. He submits that the petitioner has its principal office in Chennai. Further, the property, which is attached is also in Chennai. He further submits that an appeal under Section 42 of the PMLA, if any, shall also lie before the Madras High Court.

2.

In view of the decision of the Division Bench in Aasma Mohammed Farooq (supra), this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to avail of its remedies before the appropriate Court. 3.

This Court had granted an interim order directing that the final order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority not to be implemented. Although, in Aasma Mohammed Farooq (supra), the interim order passed therein was extended for a period of 30 days; this Court does not consider it apposite to do so in this case as this Court is informed that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in favour of the petitioner. 4.

The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 10, 2019 RK