2021 (5) TMI 1070 - HC - Money Laundering

Constitutional Validity - whether Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is intravires the Constitution of India for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 3 of the PMLA, or not? HELD THAT - The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SRI M.B. VIKRAM VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, BANGALORE 2021 (2) TMI 1355 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT having already refused to interfere in the matter and having permitted the appellants therein to agitate all their contentions before the Appellate Tribunal, it is opined that the same would be applicable to the present proceedings. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the appeals by relegating the appellants to the Appellate Tribunal reserving liberty to press for interim/protective orders pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. Pending disposal of the appeal to be filed by the appellants and consideration of any interlocutory application to be filed by the appellants, the respondents are restrained from taking any precipitative action against the appellants. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11th December 2020 in various Writ Petitions.
2. Validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Applicability of the judgment in W.A.No.107/2021 to the present proceedings.
4. Disposal of the appeals by relegating the appellants to the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Restraint on respondents from taking precipitative action pending appeal.

Analysis:

1. The Writ Appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Single Judge on 11th December 2020 in various Writ Petitions. The appellants in different Writ Appeals were the petitioners in corresponding Writ Petitions, each challenging different orders.

2. The Single Judge held that Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is constitutional for initiating proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. This decision was a key point of contention in the appeals.

3. In W.A.No.107/2021 and W.A.No.108/2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court disposed of the appeals, allowing the appellants to approach the Appellate Tribunal for interim orders. This decision was considered applicable to the present proceedings as well.

4. The Court decided to dispose of the appeals by directing the appellants to pursue their case before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellants were given the liberty to seek interim or protective orders while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal.

5. Pending the appeal and any related applications, the respondents were restrained from taking any immediate action against the appellants. If the appellants failed to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days, the interim protection would automatically cease.

In conclusion, the Writ Appeals were disposed of with the appellants being directed to pursue their case before the Appellate Tribunal, with provisions for seeking interim relief and a restraint on the respondents from taking immediate action pending the appeal process.