9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 488 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner - Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application filed by the Petitioner has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. According to ld. counsel for the Petitioner, the question as to whether reasons to believe have to be be supplied or not, has been decided by two judgments i.e. the Division Bench of this court in J. SEKAR, S. RAMACHANDRAN, K. RETHINAM, SRS MINING, T. VINAYAK RAVI REDDY, SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND ORS., M/S. SWASTIK CEMENT PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ORS., DHAWAN CREATIVE PRINTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR., APARAJITA KUMARI ANR., PRATIBHA SINGH ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ANR. 2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Adjudicating authority ought to have decided the application and thereafter proceeded to finally adjudicate the matter. However, the submission as to availability of an alternate remedy is not without merit. Under Section 26 of the PML Act, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority. Merely because of the fact the application was not decided by the authority would not be sufficient ground to entertain the present writ petition. The same could be a plea that the Petitioner can raise before the PMLA Appellate tribunal as well - This Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PML Act. The said Appellate Tribunal would firstly take a view on the Application filed by the Petitioner, and after adjudicating upon the said Application, the Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits, against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to final order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Consideration of specific application by Adjudicating Authority; Appealability of impugned order under Section 26 of PML Act; Interpretation of judgments in J. Sekar v Union of India and Seema Garg v. Deputy Director; Direction for Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the final order of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming the attachment of their bank account. The petitioner had filed a specific application with various prayers, which had not been considered or disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order lacked proper application of mind and highlighted discrepancies in the attachment of the bank account. Despite a previous court order restricting the frozen amount, the entire bank account was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement. The respondent's counsel contended that the impugned order was appealable under Section 26 of the PML Act, suggesting the petitioner should seek remedies through the Appellate Tribunal. The court noted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the petitioner's application and referenced judgments on the issue of supplying "reasons to believe." While the petitioner cited precedents supporting their position, the respondent mentioned a stay on one of the judgments pending before the Supreme Court. The court acknowledged the importance of deciding the application before final adjudication but emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PML Act. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal for further proceedings, ensuring the continuation of the previous court order regarding the bank account attachment during the appeal process. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by instructing the petitioner to seek relief from the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PML Act. The Appellate Tribunal was tasked with evaluating the petitioner's application and subsequently hearing the appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The court specified that any modifications to the previous court order should be presented to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration during the appeal process.
|
