9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1307 - AT - Money LaunderingMaintainability of the Appeal in reference to Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the Provisional Attachment Order - Writ Petition before the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India - HELD THAT - An interim order was passed but ultimately the Delhi High Court relegated the Appellant to approach the Tribunal and for that Writ Petition was order to be treated as an Appeal. The copy of the Writ Petition was accordingly presented by the Appellant and was registered as an Appeal in compliance of the order of the High Court. The perusal of sub Section (1) and (2) reveals that Appeal can be preferred against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or an order under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002. The Appeal has not been provided against the order of the Provisional Attachment Order - there are reasons to dismiss the Appeal being not maintainable. The Adjudicating Authority would not be persuaded by the dismissal of the Appeal rather it would independently analyze the issue and more specifically in reference to the earlier order passed by the same Authority denying confirmation of the earlier Provisional Attachment Order arising out of same ECIR though Appeal against that order is pending before the Tribunal. The Authority would be expected to examine whether second Provisional Attachment Order is sustainable.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal against the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Appeal based on previous orders. 3. Directions for the parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority. Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal against the Provisional Attachment Order The Appellant initially filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the Provisional Attachment Order, which was later treated as an Appeal and sent to the Tribunal. The Respondent objected to the maintainability of the Appeal citing Section 26 of the Act, which allows appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority or under Section 13(2) of the Act, but not against the Provisional Attachment Order. The Tribunal found merit in this objection and dismissed the Appeal on grounds of non-maintainability. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal The Tribunal acknowledged previous instances where Appeals against Provisional Attachment Orders were entertained on grounds of hardship. However, the Tribunal emphasized that it cannot go against the provisions of the Act and rewrite them. It clarified that any order contrary to the Statute would not be binding and would amount to being per incuriam. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the Appeal and directed the parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority. Issue 3: Directions for the parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority With the dismissal of the Appeal, the Tribunal directed the parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on a specified date. It clarified that the Adjudicating Authority should independently analyze the issue, especially in reference to a previous order denying confirmation of a Provisional Attachment Order. The Authority was instructed to examine the sustainability of the second Provisional Attachment Order in light of the earlier decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal against the Provisional Attachment Order, emphasizing the limitations set forth in the Act. It upheld the importance of statutory provisions and directed the parties to proceed before the Adjudicating Authority for further evaluation of the case.
|
