Case Law Details
Neokred Technologies Private Limited Vs Deputy Director (Karnataka High Court)
Material Facts
The petitioner challenged the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in OA No.279/2025, insofar as it affected the petitioner. The petitioner sought quashing of the order, de-freezing of its Yes Bank account and release of the frozen balance of ₹38,606/- with accrued interest, and supply of the statement of the Senior Branch Manager of Yes Bank allegedly relied upon in the proceedings.
Proceedings and Submissions
The Court noted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime but was a party to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the PMLA, where its bank account containing ₹37,500/- was sought to be attached. The petitioner had filed detailed objections to the attachment proceedings.
The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner’s objections would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.
Court’s Findings
The Court observed that while the petitioner had filed detailed objections, those objections did not receive any consideration in the impugned order, although the objections of other parties had been considered.
Final Ruling
The High Court remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the petitioner’s objections and for passing appropriate orders. All other contentions were left open. The writ petition was disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the above facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to:
A) Issue order for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in OA.No.279/2025, insofar as it operates against the petitioner, Neokred Technologies Private Limited (defendant No.163); at Annexure-D (Page No.137 262)
B) Issue order directing the respondents to forthwith de-freeze the Yes Bank Account No.2281300011952 held by the petitioner and to release the frozen balance of Rs.38,606/- (along with any accrued interest) to the petitioner at Annexure-D
C) Issue an order or direction, directing the Respondents to furnish to the Petitioner a copy of the statement of Mr. Savanand B.D., Senior Branch Manager, Yes Bank, recorded under Section 17(1)(f) of the PMLA on 01.09.2025, which has been relied upon in the Panchnama/warrant dated 01.09.2025 but has not been supplied to the Petitioner; Ann-D
D) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice”
2. Heard Sri Akshay S. Vasist, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner gets embroiled not in the crime, but in a proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, wherein his account, in which, Rs.37,500/- was there, is sought to be attached. As objections to the attachment proceedings, the petitioner files his detailed objections. The detailed objections do not even merit a mention in the order that is passed while considering every other person’s detailed objections.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the objections would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.
5. In that light, the matter is remitted back to the hands of the Adjudicating Authority to pass necessary orders upon the objections filed by the petitioner. All other contentions remain open. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed.
Author Bio
