9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 114 - AT - Money LaunderingPeriod for which property can be retained - order passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond a period of more than 180 days given under Section 20(3) of PMLA 2002 - constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. Period for which property can be retained - order passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond a period of more than 180 days given under Section 20(3) of PMLA 2002 - HELD THAT - Section 20(1) provides that if property is seized or frozen it may continue to remain frozen or seized for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date the property was seized or frozen - In the instant case the impugned order was passed on 22.08.2022 while the freezing of the amount of FD and bank account was on 05.11.2021. Thus the impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond the period of 180 days. The fact however remains that due to Covid-19 the Apex Court excluded the period for the purpose of limitation and even termination of proceedings till 28.02.2022 in the Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3/2020 decided on 10.01.2022. The period otherwise started from 15.03.2020. In view of the above the period till 28.02.2022 cannot be counted for termination of the proceedings. The period has to be excluded from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas WSP Ltd 2021 (1) TMI 1161 - DELHI HIGH COURT set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority passed after 180 days on the ground that the Apex Court has excluded the period for the purpose of limitation for taking remedies in the courts by the litigants and not for the extension of the period for termination of proceedings. The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded for computation of 180 days as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER - the issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Constitution of the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - The Calcutta High Court in the case of R.P. Infosystems Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority 2023 (8) TMI 1051 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that even a single member bench of the adjudicating authority is competent to adjudicate any matter under the provisions of the Act of 2002. In a recent case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Karvy India Realty Limited 2024 (2) TMI 732 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT Telangana High Court also held that the powers under Section 6 of the Act of 2002 can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority comprising of single member. There are no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned order was passed beyond the period of 180 days as specified under Section 20(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Whether the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority was in accordance with the Act of 2002 and the Rules of 2007. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Period of 180 Days The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the 180-day period allowed under Section 20(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The freezing of the appellant's FDRs and bank accounts occurred on 05.11.2021, and the impugned order was passed on 22.08.2022. The respondent countered this argument by citing the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3/2020, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This exclusion applied to the computation of the period prescribed under various laws, including the termination of proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, stating that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 must be excluded from the 180-day computation, thus making the impugned order timely. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including the Telangana High Court's decision in Hygro Chemicals Pharmtek Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India, which supported the exclusion of this period for the termination of proceedings. Issue 2: Constitution of the Adjudicating Authority The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority was not properly constituted as per the Act of 2002 and the Rules of 2007, arguing that the order was passed by a single member not from the field of law. The respondent countered by referencing Rule 3 of the Rules of 2007 and Section 6 of the Act of 2002, which allow for the Adjudicating Authority to consist of members from various fields, including administration and finance. The Tribunal noted that the member who passed the order possessed the necessary qualifications under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 2007. The Tribunal further cited multiple judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in J. Shekhar vs. Union of India and the Madras High Court's decision in G. Gopalakrishnan vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which upheld the validity of single-member benches. The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority was properly constituted and that the single member was competent to pass the impugned order. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant. The impugned order was deemed to have been passed within the permissible period after excluding the Covid-19 period, and the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority was found to be in compliance with the relevant legal provisions.
|
