Blog

Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court, Chennai rejected the Remand Petition presented by Department of Enforcement (ED) in ECIR / CEZO I / 60 / 2021 for the reason that ED could not produce any material including Statement of the accused u/s 50 of PMLA and ECIR which are essential for the Hon’ble Court to authorize detention in spite of prolonged time given by the Hon’ble Court till by 8.00 pm on the day of petition for remand.

Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax and Central Excise, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs admitted the Appeal filed by Shiva Shakthi Bullions against the Order In Original No. 70/2021–22 CUSTOMS (PREV) dated 30.09.2021 and the Order In Original is quashed. The Order made an absolute release of 1000.000 gms of gold bars and 1748.900 gms and set aside the penalty imposed. Joint Commissioner of Customs / Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Kochi preferred an Appeal No. 02/CUS/CHN/2022-D against the Order In Original No. 70/2021 – 22 CUSTOMS (PREV) dated 30.09.2021 in which the cash seized was released. This Appeal of the Department was also rejected in the Order In Appeal COC–CUSTM–PRV–APP–518–519–2024–25 dated 06.12.2024.

The Order-In-Original No. 66/JC/B-East/2023 dated 13.03.2023 Is based on the merits of the case and clarification issued vide Circular No. 177/09/2022 – TRU dated 03.08.2022, duly holding that the service rendered by Infant Travels Private Limited was correctly classified under SAC 9966 and not under SAC 9973 as alleged in the SCN. The Order also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in WPIL Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise that clarificatory notification would hold good retrospectively. The interest and penalty as alleged in the SCN has been set aside.

Joseph Stalin, who initially owned Studio 21 Technologies Private Limited but later transferred to one Pei Pengyun and later started Ishapps Technologies Private Limited in 2021 for crypto currency trading in Binance trading platform in alliance with Pei Pengyun, ended up in the ED case under PMLA by a complaint filed by Shekhar Pal having lost money in Gaming App Fiewin. Observing that Joseph Stalin fulfilled the Twin Conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta released him on bail in honour of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Proceedings under ECIR / CEZO – I / 20 / 2023 dated 03.01.2024 against Vishwak Properties was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras by Order dated 27.03.2024 since the Petitioner was already acquitted of the Scheduled Office, citing the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 929 and ordered Enforcement Department to refund the sum of Rs. 64,04,204/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- seized under Panchanama / Seizure Memo dated 28.12.2023 and 03.01.2024.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras ordered the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office to keep in abeyance the Look Out Notice (LOC) issued against Mohammed Jawahar in file No.T-3/88/CEZO/C/2015 since the Hon’ble Court observed that there is nothing incriminating to justify stopping the petitioner from traveling abroad and allowed the Writ W.P.No.22098 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.21496 and 21497 of 2023. However, the Hon’ble Court directed the Petitioner to swear a written affidavit before the Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement to cooperate in the investigation.

A Lookout Notice was issued against Moosa Shariq Sina Abul Kasim in File No.T- 3/88/CEZO/C/2015 on the file of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Department, Chennai Zonal Office. Moosa Shariq Sina Abdul Kasim filed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to direct the Enforcement Department to forthwith withdraw the Lookout Circular issued. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass Order on 04.09.2025 duly holding the Lookout Circular in abeyance.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras ordered closure of Appeal W.P No. 13830 of 2021 as Deputy Director of Enforcement Department confirmed having lifted the attachment and released the immovable property in S. No. 1 (10.60 acres) and in Sl. No. 3 (17.48 acres) of the schedule of PAO No. 10/2019, as R. Chinnakrishnan @ Vallal RCK had complied with the steps ordered in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras Order dated 10.12.2021 and in the Order dated 22.04.2022.

Order dated 08.05.2025 of APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI partially quashed Order dated 23.09.2022 in O.C. No. 1628/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi by holding 12 out of 18 attachments of Provisional Attachment Order / PAO No. 02 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 as illegal in APPEAL NO. FPA-PMLA/5119-5125/CHN/2022 preferred by Shri. Anitha R Radhakrishnan & others.

Provisional Attachment Order / PAO dated 01.02.2022 which attached 18 properties of the appellants Shri. Anitha R Radhakrishnan & others was partially quashed in a case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in FIR bearing case No. 04/2006 dated 07.09.2006 filed by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi. 12 out of 18 properties which were earlier mortgaged to Indian Overseas Bank but attached by Enforcement Department in the PAO were released from the PAO to avoid double attachment.

R. Durgashankar Vs Enforcement Department in Crl.O.P.No.5304 of 2024 – ECIR No. CEZO-I/35/2020 dated 22.06.2020 quashed.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras quashed ECIR No. CEZO-I/35/2020 dated 22.06.2020 in Crl.O.P.No.5304 of 2024 in view of the proceedings against the petitioner in the predicate offence in C.C.No.14 of 2019 having been quashed by the order of this Court dated 29.08.2023 made in Crl.O.P.No.7273 of 2023. Hon’ble High Court of Madras relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 929, for its view that proceedings under PMLA cannot continue if the accused is discharged of the Scheduled Offence. Essentially, it establishes that an offence under PMLA is not a stand-alone offence.