2023 (3) TMI 1073 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering - case of the Petitioner is that it s case has not even been considered by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) despite filing a detailed reply and explaining its position along with its documents and decisions relied upon - Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) is passing template cut-paste orders and the same has been demonstrated to the Court by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner through a compilation of similar orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority - violation of principles of natural justice. HELD THAT - Use of identical templated paragraphs could reflect as non-application of mind by the Authority concerned and hence ought to be avoided. The Adjudicating Authority is cautioned about passing such templated orders. It is the admitted position that the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA) is now constituted under the PMLA, 2002. The order under challenge is an Attachment Order which is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA). Accordingly, the Petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA) to avail of its appellate remedies before the same. The appeal of the Petitioner shall now be listed and taken up by the Appellate Tribunal, for adjudication in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition seeks setting aside of an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) on the grounds of non-consideration of the petitioner's case, use of templated orders, and lack of application of mind by the Authority.

Non-consideration of Petitioner's Case:
The petitioner, State Bank of India, contends that despite filing a detailed reply and providing explanations along with supporting documents, the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) failed to consider its case. It is alleged that the Authority is issuing template cut-paste orders, as evidenced by a compilation of similar orders presented to the Court. The Court noted the use of identical paragraphs in various orders, indicating a lack of individual consideration. The petitioner's position was not adequately addressed, leading to concerns regarding the Authority's decision-making process.

Use of Templated Orders:
The Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) utilized identical templated paragraphs in its orders, specifically related to compliance under sections 5(1) and 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002. This practice was criticized as reflecting a non-application of mind by the Authority. The Court cautioned the Authority against issuing such templated orders and emphasized the importance of thorough and individualized consideration in decision-making processes.

Appellate Remedies:
Although the petitioner had initially appealed to the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), the Tribunal was not properly constituted at the time, prompting the filing of the present writ petition. However, it was acknowledged that the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA) is now established under the PMLA, 2002. As the order in question is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner was directed to pursue its appellate remedies before the Tribunal. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to present its case before the Appellate Tribunal for further adjudication in accordance with the law.