2023 (7) TMI 956 - HC - Money Laundering

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before tribunal - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Provisional attachment of multiple immovable properties - HELD THAT - There is no disputation or disagreement that the writ petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of an appeal to Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi under Section 26 of PMLA. As regards alternate remedy, law is well settled that alternate remedy is not a bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction and that alternate remedy qua writ jurisdiction is a self imposed restraint. In other words, alternate remedy rule is not a absolute rule and it is a rule of discretion. Be that as it may, as regards the alternate remedy rule which is not a absolute rule and a rule of discretion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of authorities has repeatedly held that in fiscal law, the rigor of application of alternate remedy rule is very high. In the present case, the writ petitioners have raised several points on merits in their campaign against the impugned common order made by the first respondent but as this Court is not entertaining captioned WPs by applying the alternate remedy rule, it is deemed appropriate to not to embark upon the exercise of examining the same - It should be recorded that learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he is conscious of the alternate remedy rule and therefore, predicated his admission board campaign on the aforementioned 180 days point for consideration and in this view of the matter also, it is deemed appropriate to not to discuss the merits of the writ petitioners' campaign against the impugned common order. There is no cap as regards condonation. By saying no cap, it is meant that the Appellate Tribunal is not stifled when it comes to condonation of delay and any length of delay can be condoned. However, in the case on hand, adverting to the case file, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been received by the writ petitioners only on 06.02.2023 and captioned writ petitions have been filed in this Court on 20.03.2023. The captioned writ petitions are disposed of as closed albeit preserving all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Communication and timing of the impugned order.
2. Availability and applicability of alternate remedy.
3. Exceptions to the alternate remedy rule.
4. Limitation for approaching the Appellate Tribunal.

Summary:

Communication and Timing of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged the orders made by the first respondent under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 was communicated to the petitioners on 31.01.2023 via email and uploaded on the official website the same day. The physical dispatch occurred on 04.02.2023, received by the petitioners on 06.02.2023.

Availability and Applicability of Alternate Remedy:
The court acknowledged that the petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi under Section 26 of PMLA. The law is well-settled that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for exercising writ jurisdiction, but it is a rule of discretion, especially stringent in fiscal law matters.

Exceptions to the Alternate Remedy Rule:
The court cited several precedents, including Dunlop India, Satyawati Tondon, K.C. Mathew, Commercial Steel, and Greatship, emphasizing that writ petitions should not bypass statutory remedies unless exceptions such as violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute are established. In this case, the petitioners' arguments did not qualify as exceptions to the alternate remedy rule.

Limitation for Approaching the Appellate Tribunal:
The court noted that under Section 26(3) of PMLA, the Appellate Tribunal should be approached within 45 days from the date the impugned order is received. The court found the petitioners' submission reasonable that the time spent in the High Court should be excluded from the limitation period. However, it left the decision to the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of as closed, preserving the petitioners' rights to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA. The connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs.