Jsw Steel Limited vs Deputy Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 3906 Kant

                           -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

       WRIT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
JSW STEEL LIMITED
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE
AT 6TH FLOOR, EAST WING
RAHEJA TOWERS MG ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MUKUL ROHATGI SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
    SRI. SAJAN POOVAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SMT. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
   DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
   DEPT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
   GOVT. OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, "B" BLOCK
   BMTC SHANTI NAGAR TTMC, KH ROAD
   BANGALORE - 56 027.

2. BANK OF BARODA,
   TORANAGALLU BRANCH, OLD GATE
   JINDAL VIDYANAGAR STEEL LTD.
   TORANAGALLU -583 123
   BALLARI DISTRICT.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
                           ---

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4/3/2022 (AT ANNEXURE-A),
                                -2-


PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN PURSUANCE OF IA
NO.1/22 FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN WP NO.2238/2021 TO THE
EXTENT WHEREIN, THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISCONTINUED
THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14/12/2021, AND HAS GOT
GRANTED A STAY ON ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PMLA,
INCLUDING ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND ETC.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

impugned order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.22238/2021 insofar as it relates to

discontinuing the interim order dated 14.12.2021 passed in

favour of the appellant-petitioner in the said petition.

Before the learned Single Judge, while the appellant herein

was the writ petitioner, the respondents herein were

arrayed as respondents. The said petition was filed by the

appellant challenging the impugned communication dated

27.10.2021 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner and

for other reliefs.

2. Heard Sri. Mukul Rohatgi and Sri. Sajan

Poovayya, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. We

have also heard Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel

for respondent No.1. For the order proposed, notice to

respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

3. Though the matter is posted for preliminary

hearing, with the consent of both sides, the matter is taken

up for final disposal.

4. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the Appeal and referring to the

material on record, learned Senior counsel for the appellant

invites our attention to the order dated 14.12.2021 passed

in the aforesaid petition by the learned Single Judge in

order to point out that this Court restrained respondent

No.1 from arresting and detaining any of the officials of the

petitioner-Company, till the next date of hearing. The said

interim order was extended by the learned Single Judge

from time to time up to 04.03.2022, when the order

impugned in the present appeal was passed by the learned

Single Judge.

5. Learned Senior counsel submitted that on

03.01.2022, the appellant-writ petitioner filed an

application, I.A.No.1/2022 for a direction restraining

respondent No.1 from continuing with any proceedings

under the quashed ECIR/BGZO/09/2012 and from taking

any precipitative/coercive action against the petitioner and

its officials and Directors including but not limited to issuing

summons. On 04.03.2022, the said application was posted

for consideration before the learned Single Judge. It is

pointed out that up to that date, the interim order dated

14.12.2021 passed by this Court had been continued and

remained in force and operative between the parties. It is

also submitted that as on 04.03.2022, despite the interim

order dated 14.12.2021 being passed in favour of the

petitioner against respondent No.1, no application seeking

vacation/modification of the said interim order dated

14.12.2021 had been filed/made by respondent No.1 and

as such, the subject matter of hearing before the learned

Single Judge on 04.03.2022 was only for the limited

purpose of considering the application, I.A.No.1/2022 filed

by the appellant. Under these circumstances, except for

considering and passing appropriate orders on

I.A.No.1/2022 filed by the appellant in the pending

W.P.No.22238/2021, there was no occasion or warrant for

considering vacation/discontinuation of the interim order

dated 14.12.2021 passed in the said petition.

6. Learned Senior counsel submit that despite the

aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances, though

learned Single Judge allowed I.A.No.1/2022 in part, he has

erroneously proceeded to vacate the interim order dated

14.12.2021 by directing the same to be discontinued

pending decision in the petition; it is submitted that the

impugned order insofar as it relates to discontinuing the

interim order dated 14.12.2021 was neither the subject

matter of hearing on 04.03.2022 nor was the same

necessitated or warranted in the circumstances of the case

and consequently, the aforesaid portion of the impugned

order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be

quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,

in addition to supporting the impugned order submitted

that the aforesaid interim order dated 14.12.2021 was only

a time bound interim order passed in favour of the

appellant, which was being extended from time to time only

up to 04.03.2022, on which date the learned Single Judge

was fully justified in hearing both the sides and proceeding

to pass the impugned order by discontinuing the interim

order dated 14.12.2021 and consequently, the impugned

order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant

interference by this Court in the present appeal, which is

liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel however fairly

submits that on 04.03.2022, the Writ Petition was posted

for consideration of I.A.No.1/2022 before the learned Single

Judge as contended by the appellant.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival submissions and perused the material on record

including the impugned order.

9. As rightly contended by the learned Senior

counsel for the appellant, the material on record discloses

that pursuant to the appellant filing I.A.No.1/2022 seeking

further interim reliefs, the matter was listed on 04.03.2022

only for the purpose of consideration of the said

I.A.No.1/2022. Undisputedly, the interim order dated

14.12.2021 passed in the petition in favour of the appellant

had been extended from time to time and the same

remained in force even as on 04.03.2022. Under these

circumstances, while considering I.A.No.1/2022 filed by the

appellant, there was no occasion or warrant for the learned

Single Judge to discontinue/vacate the earlier interim order

dated 14.12.2021, especially when no application in this

regard was filed/made by the respondent. It is therefore

clear that the said portion of the impugned order insofar as

it relates to discontinuing the interim order dated

14.12.2021 deserves to be set aside and the said order

dated 14.12.2021 deserves to be continued till disposal of

the petition by the learned Single Judge by leaving all rival

contentions open to be considered in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, though several contentions have been urged

by both sides in support of their respective claims, without

expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival

contentions, we deem it just and appropriate to dispose of

this petition by setting aside the portion of the impugned

order to the extent it directs discontinuation of the order

dated 14.12.2021 and by directing the said interim order

dated 14.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.22238/2021 to

continue to remain in force and be operative between the

parties till disposal of the petition by the learned Single

Judge. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is

expressed on the same and the learned Single Judge is

requested to dispose of the main Writ Petition as

expeditiously as possible.

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions,

the present Appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMC