Kerala High Court Dismisses Lottery King Santiago Martin's Appeal Against ED Attachments

The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed Lottery King Santiago Martin's appeal against the Single Judge's dismissal of his plea challenging ED's attachment orders, freezing his and his company's movable assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun passed the order today. Distributor of Sikkim Lotteries and its Managing Director Martin had approached the Court earlier this month challenging the proceedings initiated against them under PMLA. The petitioners contested ED's provisional attachment orders on their properties. Martin and the company is accused of being connected to proceeds of crime estimated at Rs. 910.29 crores. Initially, they were facing accusations in a criminal case investigated by the CBI. Subsequently, the ED registered a case under the PMLA.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had earlier dismissed Martin's plea, holding that PMLA provides a comprehensive three-tier remedy for such grievances and that Martin ought to have exhausted the alternative remedies rather than bypassing them, unless they were unsuitable for the situation.The Single Judge had observed that Article 226 ought to be resorted to only in exceptional cases and that when statutory remedies are available, they should not be bypassed unless entirely ill-suited to the situation, and the plea was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The appellants represented by Advocates Kumar A. and G. Mini argued that the Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that there were alternative remedies available to them, rather than directly addressing the core issues raised by the appellants. The appellants contended that this approach was flawed, as the central concerns revolved around the respondents' actions being arbitrary, lacking valid reasons to believe, and exceeding their jurisdiction under the PMLA.They argued that the Single Judge's reliance on Section 25 of the Partnership Act was incorrect and irrelevant, as this section was not part of the original reasons to believe presented by the respondents in their orders. Moreover, the appellants highlighted that Section 25 had not been pleaded by the respondents in their counter affidavit or raised at any point during the proceedings.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 500Case Title: Santiago Martin v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number: WA 1450/ 2023

Kerala High Court Dismisses Lottery King Santiago Martin's Appeal Against ED Attachments

Navya Benny

Tags