2015 (2) TMI 75 - HC - Money Laundering

Attachment of certain immovable properties - Single Judge held that continued attachment of the property was unsustainable - Held that - Single Judge in the impugned order has returned categorical findings on interpretation of the provisions of the Act. It is also argued that in other petitions entailing the same question coming up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge is proceeding on the premise that the findings returned in the impugned order are final. - interpretation adopted by the learned Single Judge of the provisions of the Act, is erroneous and that though the learned Single Judge has taken note of the contention of the appellant of the amendment of the year 2013 to Section 8 thereof but has not adjudicated on the said aspect. - senior counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner agrees that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent / writ petitioner as well as this appeal be disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority under the PMLA to decide the appeal already preferred by the respondent / writ petitioner against the order aforesaid of attachment of properties within the time to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the impugned order / judgment and by disposing of the writ petition (from which this appeal arises) filed by the respondent / writ petitioner by directing the Appellate Authority under PMLA to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent / writ petitioner against the order of attachment within a period of eight weeks - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption for the appeal
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
3. Impugning order of attachment of properties under PMLA, 2002
4. Interpretation of provisions of the Act by the Single Judge
5. Setting aside the impugned order and directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal

Analysis:
1. The court allowed exemption for the appeal subject to all just exceptions.
2. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned after hearing the counsels for the parties.
3. The appeal challenged the order of attachment of immovable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to dispose of the representation made by the respondent within four weeks.
4. The appellant contended that the Single Judge's interpretation of the Act was erroneous and had not adjudicated on the amendment of the year 2013 to Section 8. The court found merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the interpretation.
5. After hearing both parties, it was agreed to set aside the impugned order and direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal against the attachment order within eight weeks. The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority for further arguments, if needed, to ensure the appeal's disposal within the specified time frame. A copy of the order was to be given to the counsels and forwarded to the Appellate Authority for compliance.