2021 (7) TMI 1273 - HC - Money Laundering

Continuation of an adjudication pursuant to a provisional attachment order - sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2020 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (5) TMI 564 - SC ORDER has clearly extended the time for all pending proceedings both judicial and quasi-judicial by reason of the order dated 27th April, 2021. The first order was made on 6th May, 2020. The period of 180 days, therefore, did not expire and the time limit for adjudication of 180 days may be deemed to have extended. This Court is not inclined to stay the proceeding before the adjudicating authority - Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed to the writ application within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

Summary

Issues:
Continuation of adjudication under a provisional attachment order beyond 180 days under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2020.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner challenged the continuation of an adjudication following a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2020, beyond the prescribed 180 days. The petitioner argued that the authorities should have either adjudicated, confirmed the attachment order, or extended its validity within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner contended that the adjudication was without jurisdiction and the adjudicating authority had become functus officio. The provisional attachment order had frozen the petitioner's bank accounts, leading to a request for a stay on the adjudication due to lack of jurisdiction.

In support of the petitioner's stance, reference was made to a previous case where a stay was granted by a coordinate Bench under similar circumstances. However, the respondents cited a Supreme Court decision stating that the validity of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings would stand extended until further orders, thus justifying the continuation of the adjudication process. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the petitioner's prayer might be barred by principles of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel, as the petitioner had actively participated in the proceedings, including submitting detailed responses to show cause notices.

The Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India highlighted a previous case involving similar issues, where a writ petition was withdrawn and subsequently refiled. The High Court considered the arguments from all parties and noted that the Supreme Court's order had effectively extended the time for all pending proceedings, including the adjudication in question. Notably, the court observed the petitioner's active participation in the adjudication process, where the hearing had concluded, and final orders were pending. This active involvement distinguished the current case from the previous case cited by the petitioner.

Based on the considerations, the High Court declined to stay the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. However, it directed that any decision made by the adjudicating authority against the petitioner would be subject to the outcome of the writ application. The court instructed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks and allowed a week for a reply, with liberty to mention after the completion of pleadings. All parties were directed to act upon a server copy of the order downloaded from the court's official website.