2020 (2) TMI 866 - AT - Money Laundering

Validity of order passed by way of corrigendum - incompetence of the Adjudicating Authority in passing the order by way of corrigendum - the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after having become funtus officio - power of review - Delivery of the possession of the ground floor of the property attached - HELD THAT - The appellant has taken the legal plea about the incompetence of the Adjudicating Authority in passing the order dated 09.10.2019 by way of corrigendum. The said order dated 09.10.2019 is under challenged before this Tribunal and the same is pending. The legal plea which has been taken in the application has also been taken in that appeal. If the order dated 09.10.2019 is considered and any decision is taken in the present application on the same legal issue than it would have the effect on the merit of the said appeal. Therefore, the contention raised in the appeal cannot be considered without hearing the aforesaid appeal on merit. The order of handing over the possession of rented floor was passed on 17.10.2019. The applicant accepted the order. When the date of handing over the possession came she tried to retain the possession on different grounds - there are no prima facie grounds to re-visit the order - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revisiting the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal.
2. Directing the delivery of possession of the ground floor of the attached property.
3. Stay of the letter dated 14.01.2020.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application to revisit the order dated 17.10.2019, citing that the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 09.10.2019 after becoming functus officio, which was illegal. The appellant argued that the power of review is not available under the PMLA, 2002, and the order dated 09.10.2019 altered material conditions. The appellant also claimed that blocking access to the kitchen on the ground floor would compromise the usability of the property. The Tribunal noted that the legal plea regarding the order dated 09.10.2019 is already under challenge in another appeal, and any decision on this issue could impact the pending appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating there were no grounds to revisit the order.

2. The appellant also sought the delivery of possession of the ground floor of the attached property. The respondent argued that the appellant had rented out a portion of the property until 15.01.2020, contradicting the claim of needing possession due to family members moving to Delhi to escape severe winter conditions in Kashmir. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's claims and rejected the plea for possession of the ground floor.

3. Another application was filed for a stay on the letter dated 14.01.2020. The respondent contended that the corrigendum issued on 09.10.2019 was to correct an error due to an amendment in the PMLA, not a review order. The respondent also highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's submissions regarding the property being a compact unit and the rental arrangement. The Tribunal dismissed the application for a stay, emphasizing that the corrigendum did not substantially affect the appellant's rights.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both applications, stating there were no grounds to revisit the order dated 17.10.2019 or grant possession of the ground floor. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's claims and rejected the application for a stay on the letter dated 14.01.2020. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date.