9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1538 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Appellate Tribunal under (PMLA) is not functional - Petitioner intends to prefer an Appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority within 45 days as stipulated under Section 26 of the PMLA - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the Appellate Tribunal (under PMLA) is presently not functional for want of appointment a Chairperson - the statement of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is accepted that the Petitioner will be filing an Appeal along with a stay Application before the Tribunal within the stipulated period of the Act. Accordingly, no coercive steps be taken with respect to the subject properties till such time, the Appellate Authority (under the PMLA), decides the stay Application of the Petitioner - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Functionality of the Appellate Tribunal under P.M.L.A. 2. Filing of an Appeal and Interim Application by the Petitioner. 3. Request for stay of coercive steps by the Enforcement Directorate. 4. Non-functionality of the Appellate Tribunal due to the absence of a Chairperson. 5. Direction to refrain from taking coercive steps against the Petitioner's properties. 6. Provision for a one-week grace period if an adverse order is passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. Decision to not delve into the merits of the Petition. Analysis: 1. The Petitioner's counsel highlighted the non-functionality of the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (P.M.L.A.) and expressed the intention to file an Appeal within the statutory period specified under Section 26 of the Act. Additionally, they planned to submit an Interim Application seeking a stay on the Adjudicating Authority's order. 2. Emphasizing the importance of the pending Interim Application, the Petitioner's counsel requested that no coercive actions be taken by the Enforcement Directorate against the Petitioner's properties until the Appellate Authority reviews the stay Application filed within the prescribed timeframe under the P.M.L.A. Act. 3. Acknowledging the absence of a Chairperson leading to the non-functionality of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court accepted the Petitioner's commitment to filing an Appeal and a stay Application within the Act's specified period, ensuring due process despite the current limitations. 4. In light of the above, the Court directed that no coercive measures should be enforced concerning the subject properties until the Appellate Authority, under the P.M.L.A., deliberates on the Petitioner's stay Application, safeguarding the Petitioner's interests during the legal proceedings. 5. To provide a buffer in case of an unfavorable ruling by the Appellate Authority, the Court granted a one-week grace period from the date of the order before the adverse decision takes effect, allowing time for potential further legal recourse or actions by the concerned parties. 6. Notably, the Court clarified that the judgment did not delve into the substantive merits of the Petition, keeping all contentions of the involved parties open for future consideration or arguments, ensuring a fair and impartial approach to the legal proceedings. 7. Consequently, the Writ petition was disposed of according to the terms outlined in the judgment, with a directive for all parties to adhere to the authenticated copy of the order, emphasizing compliance and legal adherence for all involved entities.
|
