9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 134 - HC - Money LaunderingRejection of an application filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench in terms of Section 6(7) of the PMLA - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The judgment in J Sekar 2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT clearly covers the issue. The Adjudicating Authority is located in Delhi and in terms of the ratio in J Sekar, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA - HELD THAT - The power of the Appellate Tribunal as held in Sanjay Jain 2023 (1) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT and U. S. Awasthi 2023 (1) TMI 595 - DELHI HIGH COURT is wide. The Tribunal adjudicates appeals arising out of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on a daily basis. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks the constitution of a Bench under Section 6(7), consisting of two members at the Adjudicating Authority level for the purpose of deciding the confirmation of the impugned Provisional Attachment order. A perusal of the provision of Section 6(7) of the PMLA, would show that it is only at the time of hearing in any matter, if the Chairperson or a member feels that the matter or case is such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench of two members, then the Chairperson may assign a two-member Bench for hearing of the said order - In the present case, there has been no opinion expressed by the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the matter is so complex so as to require a two-member Bench. The Petitioner in this case has moved an application seeking constitution of two-member Bench, the maintainability of which itself could be suspect inasmuch as there has been no opinion expressed by any member of the A that such a Bench is required. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner and the matter is now stated to be for final hearing before the Adjudicating Authority. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that an application under Section 6 and 7 would not even be maintainable - In any event, even if the said order of the Adjudicating Authority is to be challenged, an appeal under Section 26 would be the appropriate remedy and not a writ petition. There are no grounds that have been raised in this case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of Appellate Authority under PMLA for rejecting transfer application to a bench, maintainability of writ petition before Delhi High Court, violation of principles of natural justice in rejecting application without oral hearing, jurisdiction of High Court, availability of alternate remedy before Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, interpretation of Section 6(7) of PMLA regarding constitution of bench, delay tactics in seeking two-member bench, appropriate remedy for challenging Adjudicating Authority's order, need for multiple benches in Adjudicating Authority. Analysis: 1. The petition contested the Appellate Authority's order dated 25th January, 2023, which denied the transfer of proceedings to a bench under Section 6(7) of the PMLA. The provisional attachment order against the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement was challenged through this petition, emphasizing the need for a two-member bench for the case. 2. The jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was established based on the location of the Appellate Authority in Delhi, supported by precedents like J Sekar, ensuring the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court. The Court's jurisdiction was deemed appropriate for deciding the legal questions raised in the petition. 3. The power and efficacy of the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA were highlighted, citing cases like Sanjay Jain and U. S. Awasthi, emphasizing the Tribunal's daily adjudication of appeals from the Adjudicating Authority. The availability of an alternate remedy before the Tribunal was underscored. 4. The interpretation of Section 6(7) of the PMLA was crucial in determining the constitution of a bench, clarifying that the provision did not allow parties to request a two-member bench. The Court emphasized that such applications could lead to unnecessary delays and were not in line with the Act's time-sensitive nature. 5. It was concluded that the application for a two-member bench was not maintainable, especially after its rejection by the Adjudicating Authority. The appropriate remedy for challenging the Authority's decision was deemed to be an appeal under Section 26, rather than a writ petition under Article 226. 6. Lastly, the Court highlighted the necessity for multiple benches in the Adjudicating Authority due to the high volume of pending cases under the PMLA. It urged the Central Government to expedite the appointment of Chairperson and other members to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Authority. The petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing that the Court's opinion did not reflect on the case's merits.
|
