9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 614 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - non-constitution of appropriate forum - Validity of provisional attachment order - It is the submission of Respondents that the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act has now been constituted and the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT - In the present petitions before the Court, since the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act has now been constituted, in the opinion of this Court, the entire issue would have to be comprehensively considered by the Appellate Tribunal. There are already two pending appeals filed by the ED in respect of the earlier order of the AA. The present PAO is now challenged before this Court. Therefore, the entertaining of this petition, at this stage, when the Tribunal stands constituted could result in multiplicity of proceedings and also there is a possibility of conflicting rulings, which ought to be avoided. Considering that the impugned provisional attachment order by the ED was of 27th November, 2020 and the present writ petition was filed way back in September, 2021. The Supreme Court in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 titled In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 2021 (11) TMI 387 - SC ORDER had held that the period between 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 would not be counted for the purpose of limitation. It is accordingly directed that the present writ petition shall be treated as an appeal challenging the PAO dated 27th November, 2020. This appeal to the PAO shall be considered by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act in accordance with law along with the two pending appeals filed by the ED. The stay application filed before this Court shall be considered as a stay application before the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment order (PAO) under PMLA Act, show cause notice by Adjudicating Authority, plea of res judicata, jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal, multiplicity of proceedings, limitation period for filing appeal. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment order (PAO) dated 27th November, 2020, issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). They also contested the show cause notice by the Adjudicating Authority in the Original Complaint. The petitioners argued that a previous PAO on the same transactions was not approved by the Adjudicating Authority, and appeals by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners claimed res judicata based on previous orders of the Adjudicating Authority (AA), which the ED refuted. The ED contended that the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act had been constituted, and the petitioners should appeal there. The petitioners had not filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal due to the pending writ petition. The impugned PAO detailed the attachment of assets and properties linked to alleged money laundering activities. The High Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal was now established under the PMLA Act, and the issue should be considered comprehensively by the Tribunal. Multiple appeals by the ED were pending before the Tribunal regarding the earlier AA orders. The Court directed the present writ petition to be treated as an appeal challenging the PAO, to be considered by the Appellate Tribunal along with the pending appeals. Until the Tribunal decided on the stay application, interim orders from previous writ petitions would continue. The Court emphasized that its interim orders would not affect the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal. The petition and all pending applications were disposed of with the understanding that the Appellate Tribunal would decide on the merits of the case under the PMLA Act. The Court also addressed the limitation period for filing appeals, following a Supreme Court ruling on the exclusion of certain dates for limitation purposes. The detailed analysis of the impugned PAO, previous orders, jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, and the plea of res judicata formed the basis for the Court's decision to refer the matter to the Tribunal for comprehensive consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting rulings by allowing the Appellate Tribunal to handle the case in its entirety.
|
