9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to know recently that such amendments have been carried out as Money Bills, would not justify the delay. Even otherwise, his submission that it was only after the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court, on a similar issue, did the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the amendments of 2015, 2016 and 2018 by filing this petition, does not answer the submission made by Ms. Acharya that the challenge, apart from being hit by delay and laches, is by a person who has no locus, being not aggrieved by the amendments. Case followed KUSUM INGOTS ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. We do not think that it is a case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PML Act in short) was enacted on January 17, 2013 for the purposes of preventing the offence of money laundering and the confiscation of property derived from such offence. Before the year 2015, the Act was amended on various occasions through Ordinary Bills as defined under Article 109 of the Constitution of India. However, from the year 2015 most amendments to the PML Act have been enacted via Finance Acts as Money Bills , defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. 3. According to him, a Money Bill is deemed to be such if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the matters under (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). In other words, a Money Bill is restricted only to the specified matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has decided a similar issue. According to him, there is no issue of limitation in challenging a parliamentary enactment, more so when the amendments are unconstitutional. It was also his submission that this Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as the amendments are unconstitutional. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India stated that the present petition challenging the amendments effected in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018, that too at the behest of a person, who is not affected by the amendments, must not be entertained. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2004) 6 SCC 254 Kusum Ingots Alloys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
