OINAM v. State of Manipur and 2 Ors
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
01.08.2025 ORDER [1] Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA for the State respondents and Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 3 (i.e. M/s Smart Society of Salai Holdings Private Limited). [2] The petitioners who are investors to the respondent no. 3 approached this Court directing the State respondents for attachment of the whole assets both movable and immovable properties of the respondent no. 3 and to make repayment of the due amount to the petitioners after following procedures prescribed under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 within specific period of time. [3] It is submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition the competent authority has provisional attachment on 19.09.2022 and vide letter dated 02.05.2023, the competent authority has requested to the Designated Court (BoUDS) Act, Manipur for confirming the provisional attachment is absolute. [4] However, vide order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Designated Court, it is observed that it is for the competent authority to take steps for making the provisional attachment is made absolute and it is submitted that the competent authority has not taken up any steps for making absolute. [5] The learned GA for the State respondents draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.08.2023 of the Designated Court and he may be given some time to take instructions at the latest development. [6] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by issuing innocuous direction to the competent authority to proceed as per Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. [7] Recording the submissions made at the bar, the present W.P. (C) No. 597 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the competent authority to proceed as per Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 including the process for making the provisional attachment as absolute and repayment of the due amount entitled to the petitioners, if any. [8] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. [9] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Thoiba JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.