Item No.102
Suppl List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.3105/2024
CM No.8453/2024
M/S MIRZA SONS PETITIONER(S)
…
Through: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate.
Vs.
J&K BANK LTD & ANR
…RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ AY DHAR, JUDGE
(ORDER)(ORAL)
31.12.2024
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition,
has sought a direction upon the respondents, in particular upon
respondent No.2, to release the FDR Nos.0323050300807834,
0323050300808321 and 0323050300808439 and the
documents pertaining to the properties being D-84, Bharat
Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, Residential Flat No.232,
Kailash Hills, New Delhi and Flat No.602, Rattan Jyoti
Apartments, Ghaziabad-UP, after adjusting the outstanding
amounts.
2) Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja,
Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3) Heard and considered.
Page 2 of 5
4) As per case of the petitioner, he is engaged in the business
of manufacturing, selling and export of various Kashmiri
Handicrafts and in this connection, he has availed various
financial facilities from the respondent Bank against which he
has pledged aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts and aforesaid
properties. It has been further contended that during the
subsistence of these credit facilities, the aforesaid properties of
the petitioner firm and its proprietor were provisionally attached
by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with ECIR
No.01/SRZO/2018. These provisional attachment orders were
confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority designated under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act . A
(for short “PMLA”)
complaint was also filed against the petitioner before the
Designated Court at Srinagar.
5) It has also been contended that the petitioner, through the
medium of a petition bearing CRM(M) No.160/2020, had
challenged jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to
investigate and prosecute him in connection with aforesaid
ECIR. The said petition was allowed by this court in terms of
judgment dated 14.08.2024. As a sequel to the aforesaid
judgment, the complaint preferred by the Enforcement
Directorate before the Designated court at Srinagar was also
dismissed in terms of order dated 27.08.2024.
Page 3 of 5
6) It has been further contended that due to the aforesaid
events, the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the
Appellate Tribunal under PMLA were allowed and the
confirmation of attachment orders were set aside and all the
properties of the petitioner firm were released. In this regard,
order dated 21.11.2024 came to be passed by the Appellate
Authority.
7) It is the further contention of the petitioner firm that it has
squared up its credit facilities and the total outstanding credit of
the petitioner firm has come down to Rs.13.00 lacs
approximately as on 10.04.2024, therefore, the petitioner firm
requested the respondent Bank to release the FDRs after
adjusting the balance due in the loan account and also to release
the documents of the properties mortgaged. This was done in
terms of communication dated 04.05.2024. In response to the
said communication, the respondent Bank vide communication
dated 27.12.2024 has refused to release the FDRs as well as the
documents of the mortgaged properties on the ground that the
petitioner firm has to obtain clear directions from the Court as
the Court has kept it open for the Enforcement Directorate to
reinitiate proceedings against the borrower.
8) The documents annexed to the petition clearly indicate
that the proceedings launched by the Enforcement Directorate
against the petitioner pursuant to ECIR No.01/SRZO/2018
Page 4 of 5
dated 28.12.2018, have been quashed by this Court in terms of
judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in CRM(M) No.160/2020,
whereafter the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate
against the petitioner has also been disposed of by the
Designated Court in the light of the judgment of this Court. The
Designated court in its order dated 27.08.2024 has made it clear
that the properties attached during investigation of the case shall
stand released in favour of the petitioner from whom the same
have been attached. As per order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the
Appellate Tribunal, the appeal of the petitioner against the
attachment order has been accepted.
9) In the face of aforesaid developments, there is hardly any
clarification needed from this Court. Merely, because the
Enforcement Directorate has been given liberty by this Court
while passing judgment dated 14.08.2024 and by the Appellate
Tribunal while passing order dated 21.11.2024, to re-initiate the
proceedings against the petitioner, does not mean that the
respondent Bank is justified in withholding the passing of
appropriate orders with regard to release of the attached
property i.e. FDRs and other immovable properties. The
respondent Bank is expected to take a call in the matter in the
light of the facts and situation obtaining at present and not what
may be done by the Enforcement Directorate or any other agency
in future.
Page 5 of 5
10) In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the respondents to take a decision with regard to
release of FDRs and the documents relating to immovable
properties of the petitioner in accordance with law without
waiting for any future action that may be contemplated by the
Enforcement Directorate or any other agency against the
petitioner.
11) Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
31.12.2024
-Secy
“Bhat Altaf ”
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
01.01.2025 15:26