[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Haoda Payments Solution Private vs The Adjudicating Authority (Pmla) on 15 April, 2026
W.P.(Crl.)No.805 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.(Crl.)No.805 of 2026
and W.P.M.P.(Crl.)Nos.267 to 269 of 2026
M/s.Haoda Payments Solution Private Limited,
Represented by its Director,
R.Vigneshwar,
No.4A/B, Thygaraja Complex,
PH Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai - 600 010. .. Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Adjudicating Authority (PMLA),
Prevention of Money Laundering,
Room No.26, 4th Floor,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement,
HIU-II, Room No.406,
3rd Floor, B Block,
Parvartan Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011. .. Respondent(s)
______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl.)No.805 of 2026
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the
proceedings in O.A.No.364 of 2025 against the petitioner conducted by
1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal against the
petitioner/4th defendant in O.A.No.364 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.G.Pranava Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil
Special Public Prosecutor (ED)
for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in
O.A.No.364 of 2025 on the file of the 1 st respondent/Adjudicating
Authority (PMLA) in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. Mr.M.G.Pranava Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner’s company is only offering a platform for
merchants, which is strictly a payment intermediary, having no control
over the commercial transactions between the merchants and
customers and therefore, the proceedings undertaken by the 1 st
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent are not maintainable. He further submitted that since the
petitioner’s company is no way involved with any unlawful transactions
or illegalities, the retention of properties in the form of gold bullions,
digital devices, etc., particularly when the petitioner is only a payment
intermediary, cannot be sustained. Further, he contended that since
the reasons recorded under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], do not in
any way implicate the petitioner’s company, the show cause notice
issued on 11.12.2025 to the petitioner is erroneous and as the 1 st
respondent does not have jurisdiction to proceed further, the present
writ petition filed is maintainable.
3. Per contra, Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public
Prosecutor (ED) for the 2nd respondent submitted that pursuant to the
seizure made, Original Application has been filed by the 2 nd respondent
under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the seized movable
properties under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The Adjudicating
Authority, by recording the reasons under Section 8(1) of the Act, had
issued show cause notice to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the
petitioner had filed a counter statement and had also participated in
the enquiry and further enquiry is posted on 16.04.2026. He further
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted that it is for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and
the present writ petition filed is not maintainable.
4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
5. Based on a complaint, that the victims were lured through
Facebook advertisements and WhatsApp groups in the name of ‘Billion
Club 16’, ‘Labha069’ and ‘Light of Wisdom 43’, projecting as stock
market trading academies and huge amounts of money running to
several crores were misappropriated, a case in Crime No.277 of 2024
came to be registered on 17.08.2024 against one Raghav Ruia and
others for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Based on the
predicate offence, which are all scheduled offences under the Act, the
2nd respondent registered a case in ECIR/HIU-II/18/2025 dated
28.07.2025.
6. A search was conducted under Section 17 of the Act on
07.11.2025 and 08.11.2025. During the search, several incriminating
materials were found in the form of gold bullions, digital devices and
documents, which were believed to be the proceeds of crime.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. On seizure of the materials, the 2 nd respondent had filed an
application before the 1st respondent/Adjudicating Authority as
mandated under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the
properties seized. On receipt of the application under Section 17(4) of
the Act, the Adjudicating Authority, by proceedings dated 11.12.2025,
has recorded that there are prima facie materials indicating the
proceeds of crime, attracting provisions of the Act and thereby had
issued show cause notices to the respondents in the application,
including the petitioner herein, as contemplated under Section 8(1) of
the Act.
8. As per the scheme of the Act, on issuance of notice under
Section 8(1) of the Act, the respondents in the application will be
entitled to file their objections/reply to the retention of properties. On
filing of the objections, the Adjudicating Authority, as per Section 8(2)
of the Act, shall consider the reply and after hearing the aggrieved
person, by taking into account all relevant materials placed on record,
shall pass an order by recording a finding as to whether all or any of
the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) of
the Act are involved in money laundering.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. As per the proviso, even a person who claims to be the owner
of the property other than to whom notice has been issued, such
person shall also be given an opportunity to prove that the property is
not involved in the alleged violation. In case, the Adjudicating
Authority passes an order confirming retention of properties under
Section 8(3) of the Act, then, the same is subject to further
proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
10. Admittedly, in the instant case, based on the predicate
offence, the ECIR under the Act came to be registered by the 2 nd
respondent. Further, on the reasons to believe recorded, the search
and seizure were carried out, which has not been disputed. The 2 nd
respondent had filed application as contemplated under Section 17(4)
of the Act for retention of the property along with the reasons to
believe that have been recorded, under Section 17(1) of the Act to the
Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority, prima facie having
been satisfied with the materials available on record that crores of
rupees have been siphoned off and the proceeds of crime are involved,
has recorded the reasons under Section 8(1) of the Act.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. By proceedings dated 11.12.2025, the 1 st respondent herein
has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. When none of the
above proceedings are under dispute or challenge, admittedly, the
petitioner had filed reply/objections to the show cause notice and it is
not in dispute that the enquiry is posted for hearing on 16.04.2026.
When the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and filed a
reply putting forth their contentions, it is for the Adjudicating Authority
to consider the materials and pass orders as contemplated under
Section 8(2) of the Act, by recording a finding as to whether all or any
of the properties referred to in the notice is involved in money
laundering.
12. While so, the present writ petition filed challenging the
entire proceedings in Original Application before the Adjudicating
Authority is completely misplaced. When the enquiry is posted on
16.04.2026, where the petitioner had already participated, it is for the
petitioner to wait for the outcome of the orders to be passed by the
Adjudicating Authority and take further proceedings in accordance with
the provisions contemplated under the Act.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. In such circumstances, we find no merit and accordingly,
the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, interim applications stand closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J)
15.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sri
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Adjudicating Authority (PMLA),
Prevention of Money Laundering,
Room No.26, 4th Floor,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement,
HIU-II, Room No.406,
3rd Floor, B Block,
Parvartan Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri
15.04.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
