2024 (3) TMI 564 - HC - Money Laundering

Provisional attachment order - whether the appeal filed by the appellant only impugns the order confirming the provisional attachment and did not impugn the order rejecting the application filed before the Adjudicating Authority for non-supply of certain documents and non-supply of legible copies of certain Relied Upon Documents - HELD THAT - Perusal of the prayer paragraph of the appeal shows that the appellant has not only impugned the order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure A1 to the appeal before the Tribunal) whereby the provisional attachment order was confirmed, but has also impugned all proceedings prior thereto including the detailed order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure A-11 to the appeal before the Tribunal). Clearly, the Tribunal has erred in not noticing that the appellant has not only impugned the order of confirmation of provisional attachment, but also the order whereby the application of the appellant seeking copies of the Relied Upon Documents was rejected. On that ground, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and calls for a remit. The order dated 14.12.2023 is set aside. The application of the appellant for supply of documents is restored to its original number on the records of the Appellate Tribunal - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the erroneous holding by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the appellant's appeal, the rejection of the application for documents by the Adjudicating Authority, and the confirmation of the provisional attachment order.

Issue 1: Appellate Tribunal's Error
The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the Appellate Tribunal erred in its decision, as the appeal filed by the appellant not only challenged the order confirming the provisional attachment but also contested the rejection of the application for certain documents. The appellant's argument was that the Tribunal failed to recognize this dual challenge in the appeal.

Issue 2: Rejection of Application
The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the appellant's application for certain documents, alleging that some relied upon documents were not supplied and some were illegible. The appellant claimed that a detailed order was referred to but not provided until a later date, leading to confusion regarding the rejection of the application. The respondents, however, asserted that all documents were supplied and legible, which was disputed by the appellant.

Issue 3: Confirmation of Provisional Attachment
The provisional attachment order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on a specific date. The Appellate Tribunal's order noted that the appellant had not challenged the rejection of the application for documents, leading to the conclusion that the appeal only pertained to the confirmation of the provisional attachment and not the earlier rejection.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the appellant's appeal. The appellant had indeed challenged both the confirmation of the provisional attachment and the rejection of the application for documents. The Court set aside the order confirming the attachment and restored the appellant's application for documents. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for further consideration in line with the law. The Court reserved all rights and contentions of the parties and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide on the application during the final hearing of the appeal scheduled for a specific date.