9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 630 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - seeking a copy of order dated 1st January, 2021 passed under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 be supplied to the Petitioner - further seeking that the period of at least 45 days in order to enable the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA, should not be affected. HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, 20 days time is granted to the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedies and physical possession of the immovable property shall not be taken for a period of 20 days from today. The question of law raised is left open. Further, in order to avoid such a dispute in future and to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness, the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA shall ensure that in future, all orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, apart from being served in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, would also be uploaded on the website of the Adjudicating Authority within 48 hours from the date of the pronouncement. The Adjudicating Authority shall also fix a specific date for pronouncement of orders in open Court in terms of Regulation 27. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking copy of order and stay on enforcement, interpretation of Section 8(4) of PMLA, compliance with rules regarding possession of attached properties, delay in serving orders, time period for filing appeal, adherence to judicial precedents on appeal timelines. Analysis: The petitioner approached the court seeking a copy of the order passed under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and a stay on its enforcement to allow time for approaching the Appellate Tribunal. The respondent argued that under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, possession of the property can be taken once the provisional order of attachment is confirmed. Rule 5(2) of the Rules mandates a ten-day notice before taking possession of immovable property. The court noted the importance of promptly serving orders to enable parties to avail of legal remedies. The petitioner cited judgments from the Madras and Bombay High Courts emphasizing the need for a reasonable time period before physical possession is taken. The court observed that the order in question was passed on 1st January 2021, but the petitioner only received it on 9th January 2021, raising concerns about delayed service. The Adjudicating Authority's order confirmed the attachment of properties involved in money laundering, with specific directions regarding the continuation of attachment and the appeal process. Regulation 27 requires delivering a copy of the order on the date of pronouncement, which was not promptly done in this case. The court granted the petitioner 20 days to avail of appellate remedies and ordered a stay on taking physical possession during this period. To prevent future disputes and ensure transparency, the court directed the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority to upload all orders on the website within 48 hours of pronouncement. Additionally, specific dates for pronouncing orders in open court were mandated to enhance procedural fairness and avoid delays in serving orders. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to legal timelines and the need for efficient service of orders to uphold the rights of parties involved.
|
