2023 (5) TMI 868 - HC - Money Laundering

Jurisdiction to hear PMLA cases - whether the Adjudicating Authority consisting of only one technical member can hear the cases under the PMLA Act 2005 and pass attachment orders? - HELD THAT - This Court has already taken the view that under Section 26 of PMLA Act any person aggrieved by an order is entitled to approach the Appellate Tribunal. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. ORS. VERSUS NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP ANR. ETC. ETC. 2023 (5) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT the Court has observed that the statutory mechanism needs to be followed and writ jurisdiction ought to be exercised with caution. The opinion of the Court is that the Petitioner who claims a beneficial interest in the property ought to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act. At this stage ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of the PMLA Act.

Summary

Issues:
The issue involves the challenge to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005, questioning the authority of a single technical member to hear cases and pass attachment orders.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Authority of Adjudicating Authority
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA Act, 2005, arguing that a single technical member cannot hear cases and pass attachment orders. Reference was made to a judgment of the Telangana High Court, highlighting the quasi-judicial nature of the Adjudicating Authority's functions. The Court considered previous decisions and noted that the order under challenge was a final attachment order. The Respondent submitted that an appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, while the Petitioner claimed a violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction
The Court referred to Section 26 of the PMLA Act, which allows any person aggrieved by an order to approach the Appellate Tribunal. It was emphasized that the Petitioner, as a person aggrieved, had the right to challenge the attachment order before the Appellate Tribunal. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court stressed the need to follow statutory mechanisms and exercise caution in invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act, dismissing the petition with liberty to do so and clarifying that the Court had not assessed the merits of the case.

This summary encapsulates the key issues and details of the judgment, highlighting the legal arguments, statutory provisions, and the Court's directions for further action.