2022 (11) TMI 1524 - AT - Money Laundering

Violation of principles of natural justice - applications have been disposed of by the common order without providing an opportunity of hearing by the learned Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - It is a fact that the parties were not called for hearing by the learned Authority. The order was passed by the Authority after considering the rival pleadings. If this Tribunal finds a case, it can send the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order afresh after providing an opportunity of oral hearing to the parties. The counsel for the respondent has made aforesaid statement on the instructions from the Department. The facts on the record show that after the Provisional Attachment Order, when the matter was taken up by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant moved an application to seek an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses - The said application has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority after a reply to it by the Department. The parties are directed to appear before the Authority on 8th December, 2022 when the matter is otherwise fixed before it - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Adjudicating Authority without oral hearing, Opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses, Request for copy of order with reasons to believe, Remand of case for fresh order after oral arguments.

Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal heard two appeals challenging an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority without providing an opportunity of oral arguments to the parties. The appellant had filed two separate applications: one to cross-examine witnesses and the other to obtain a copy of the order where reasons to believe were recorded. The Adjudicating Authority disposed of both applications through a common order without oral hearings, after considering replies from the respondent. The Tribunal found that the order lacked oral arguments and remanded the case for a fresh order after oral hearings, emphasizing the importance of providing such opportunities before passing orders.

The respondent's counsel acknowledged that replies were filed contesting the applications but admitted that oral hearings were not conducted by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the appellant had requested cross-examination of witnesses and a copy of the order with reasons to believe, both of which were addressed in the impugned order without oral arguments. The Tribunal agreed that the matter should be remanded for fresh orders with oral hearings, as it is essential for the Adjudicating Authority to provide such opportunities before making decisions.

The Tribunal highlighted the obligation of the Adjudicating Authority to allow oral hearings for parties before making decisions on applications or provisional attachment orders. It emphasized that orders should not be passed without oral hearings unless a party defaults in appearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the Authority on a specified date for fresh orders after oral arguments. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the case to be remanded for further proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.