2021 (1) TMI 1331 - AT - Money Laundering

Maintainability of appeal u/s 26 of PMLA 2002 - Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal to maintain the appeal - main contention of the appellant is that neither any order is passed on the applications dated 6-1-2021 18-1-2021 nor these have been disposed of but the O.A. No. 404/2020 has been kept for argument on 19-1-2021 - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the pleadings and what is made out from the submissions of the appellant are that he is seeking relief from this Appellate Tribunal for a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the aforesaid applications before proceeding further. The order dated 19-1-2021 is an order fixing the argument of the O.A. No.404/2020 on 25-1-2021 and the O.A. is further adjourned to 01-2-2021 for argument and that admittedly there is no order on the applications dated 6-1-2021 18-01-2021. It appears that the appellant has taken shelter under the garb of the order dated 19-1-2021 to dispose of the applications dated 6-1-2021 18-1-2021. On a plain reading of Section 26(1) of the PMLA 2002 it is clear that there must be an order of Adjudicating Authority by which the Director or any person aggrieved may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. In fact the order dated 19-1-2021 appears to have been passed on a different context and by taking shelter of this order dated 19-1-2021 the appellant is trying to get an order on aforesaid two applications which are admittedly yet to be disposed of. That being so it is held that the order dated 19-1-2021 is not an appealable order to pass any orders on applications which are yet to be decided. The Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. In fact the facts of the judgment of Hon ble High Court Delhi in the matter of between Hamilton Houseware (P.) Ltd. 2021 (2) TMI 488 - DELHI HIGH COURT is different in view of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority had passed the final order and after passing of the final order the matter was taken to Hon ble High Court challenging the final order dated 28-12-2020 and stating therein that the petitioner s specific application dated 14-12-2020 was neither considered nor disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority. It is not the case in the present appeal. So this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant s present case/appeal. There is no order on the applications against which the appellant is seeking remedy under section 26(1) of the PMLA 2002 therefore no appeal lies under section 26(1) to the appeal and is not maintainable hence dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Urgent listing and hearing of the appeal
- Maintainability of the appeal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Consideration of applications dated 6-1-2021 and 18-1-2021 by the Adjudicating Authority
- Legality of the order dated 19-1-2021
- Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal

Analysis:
The matter involved an urgent application for listing and hearing of an appeal filed by the appellant under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant sought various reliefs, including setting aside the impugned order and directing the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of pending applications. The main contention was that the order dated 19-1-2021 did not address the applications dated 6-1-2021 and 18-1-2021, leading to the appeal challenging the legality of the order.

The appellant argued that the order dated 19-1-2021 was not a concrete order deciding the applications and, therefore, the appeal was maintainable. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the impugned order was not an order but a proceeding recorded. The respondent highlighted that the Adjudicating Authority had assured that pending applications would be decided in the final order.

The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 26(1) of the PMLA, 2002, which require an order from the Adjudicating Authority for an appeal to be preferred. It was observed that the order dated 19-1-2021 did not address the pending applications and, therefore, was not appealable. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on a non-appealable order.

Furthermore, the Tribunal reviewed judgments cited by the appellant, including those from different High Courts and the Appellate Tribunal. It was noted that the facts and circumstances of those cases were distinguishable from the present appeal, rendering them inapplicable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that no order existed on the applications, making the appeal not maintainable under section 26(1) of the PMLA, 2002.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal challenging the order dated 19-1-2021 was not maintainable as the order did not address the pending applications. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a concrete order from the Adjudicating Authority for an appeal to be entertained, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction.