The Karnataka High Court has dismissed JSW Steel’s challenge to Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings and the provisional attachment of its bank accounts in a case linked to allegedly illegally mined iron ore.
A Bench of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf held that there was no basis for the High Court to interfere after the company had already failed to secure relief before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
The Court was hearing JSW Steel’s plea seeking quashing of the ED proceedings and the attachment order in connection with the alleged procurement of illegally mined iron ore.
The Bench also rejected the company’s argument that the matter should have been sent back to the PMLA Adjudicating Authority because its written submissions had allegedly not been considered.
The High Court noted that JSW Steel had already placed its factual and legal submissions before the Appellate Tribunal. It therefore found no justification to order a remand merely on the ground of an alleged breach of natural justice, particularly after the Tribunal had declined such a request.
The dispute traces back to a 2011 FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Associated Mining Company partners G Janardhana Reddy and G Lakshmi Aruna.
The allegations concerned illegal mining of iron ore between 2009 and 2012 from areas for which the company allegedly did not hold mining leases. The investigation also invoked provisions relating to conspiracy, theft, fraud, forgery, illegal mining and corruption.
According to the case, Associated Mining Company supplied around 1,84,992 metric tonnes of the allegedly illegally extracted iron ore to JSW Steel. The amount allegedly payable by JSW Steel for the material was stated to be ₹33.80 crore.
During the subsequent proceedings, the ED provisionally attached JSW Steel’s bank accounts containing approximately ₹24.37 crore and placed the attachment before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.
The authority later confirmed the attachment, holding that the ED had demonstrated a reasonable basis for its belief concerning the amount allegedly owed by JSW Steel to Associated Mining Company.
JSW Steel challenged that decision before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal in 2024, arguing that the proceedings should be remanded because its written submissions had not been properly considered.
The company subsequently approached the Supreme Court after the proceedings went against it, but the challenge did not result in the attachment being set aside.
Against this backdrop, the Karnataka High Court found no grounds to exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court consequently dismissed JSW Steel’s writ petition and declined to interfere with the existing attachment proceedings.
Senior Advocate Gopal Jain and Advocate Aditya Narayan represented JSW Steel. The ED was represented by Advocates Anuparna Bordoloi, Dhanush M and Ajaypal Singh.