2024 (3) TMI 356 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - proceeds of crime - provisional attachment of immovable properties appear to have been confirmed without any knowledge of the petitioner - alternative appellate remedy - HELD THAT - Appeals under Section 26 of PMLA lie against an order of the Adjudicating Authority 'under this Act' - On a careful reading of Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and Rule 2 of the Rules of 2005, it is clear that any person aggrieved by the order, even if a person is not a party to the order can file an appeal u/s 26 of the PMLA, 2002 before the Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid provisions, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the availability of alternative remedies under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Maintainability:
The petitioner, a banking company, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner argued that the attachment was ex-parte and requested the court to set aside the entries in the list of confirmed attached immovable properties. The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002, and since the attachment order was not challenged, the writ petition should be dismissed. The petitioner, in rejoinder, stated that it was not a party to the attachment order and could only seek relief through the court's writ jurisdiction.

Analysis of Maintainability:
The court examined the provisions of Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and the Rules of 2005, which allow any person aggrieved by an order to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, even if not a party to the order. Considering these provisions, the court found that the petitioner could avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002. Therefore, the court was not inclined to entertain the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the remedy under Section 26.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after analyzing the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 and the Rules of 2005, dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the petitioner could avail the alternative remedy u/s 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and clarified that the time spent on the petition would not affect any future application under the Limitation Act. The petition was disposed of, providing the petitioner with the option to pursue the remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.