STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

Lower court’s refusal to de-freeze fixed deposits set aside

The counsel for Canara Bank argued that if the ownership of the property was certain, then the property was to go back to the owner of the property.

Published: 20th September 2018 03:34 AM  |   Last Updated: 20th September 2018 03:34 AM   |  A+A-

Court Hammer

Image used for representational purpose only.

By Express News Service

CHENNAI : The Madras High Court allowed the criminal revision case filed by Canara Bank against the order, passed by the principal sessions judge who refused to de-freeze the fixed deposits held by various companies and to direct the Enforcement Directorate to pay Rs 13.22 crore lying in the credit of fixed deposits along with interest accrued thereon to the bank.

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman set aside the order passed by the principal sessions judge in Chennai while remitting the case back and directing principal sessions judge to take into consideration the amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as extracted and whereby during the course of the trial, the claim of parties can be considered for restoration of the property and deal with the same in accordance with law.

The learned principal sessions judge, Chennai, has held that as all accused are appearing before the court and the matter is ready for presentation of the prosecution, the conditions stated under Section 8(7) of the Act have not been arrived at and accordingly, dismissed the petition, observing that the trial of the case has not been concluded.

The counsel for Canara Bank argued that if the ownership of the property was certain, then the property was to go back to the owner of the property. “Only if the ownership of the property was doubtful, the property has to be a part of the trial proceedings and one has to wait for the conclusion of the trial,’ the counsel stated.“Even though trial had not commenced, as the money belonged to the petitioner bank, there was no bar for them to claim the money nor any bar on the first respondent herein from handing the money,” the bank stated.

Changes in PMLA 
Principal sessions judge directed to take into consideration the amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as extracted and whereby during the course of the trial, the claim of parties can be considered for restoration of the property and deal with the same in accordance with law

Stay up to date on all the latest Chennai news with The New Indian Express App. Download now

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp