9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. But, when the Directorate itself files the same, whether through the Assistant Director or any other authority as mentioned in the Act itself, it is a substantial compliance of the said provision - Moreover, section 68 of the PML Act espouses a spirit of pragmatism and shuns thwarting actions taken under the said Act merely on the excuse of technicalities. Whether the Enforcement Directorate could also invoke the locus of an 'aggrieved person' in filing an appeal under section 26 of the PML Act? - HELD THAT:- It is true that in the instant case, there is no interpretation clause present to qualify the inclusive definition. However, section 48 of the PML Act, as referred to above, squarely brings an aggrieved entity like the Enforcement Directorate within the ambit of a 'person' as described in section 2 (s) of the Act - the Enforcement Directorate should be competent to file an appeal under section 26 of the PML Act. Thus, there is no bar on the Enforcement Directorate to file an appeal under section 26 of the PML Act, through the Assistant Director, before the learned Appellate Tribunal - appeal dismissed. - FMAT 36 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2021 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which could file an appeal under Section 26 of the Act was a Director. In fact, the term person mentioned in Section 26 is defined in Section 2(s) of the said Act and it does not include the authorities of the Directorate. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate through the Assistant Director was not maintainable. While deciding the issue, the Tribunal erroneously relied on the case of Amarjit Singh alias Billa, 2009 SCC Online Del 995. It failed to consider that in that case the appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which was not in pari materia with Section 26 of the PML Act. Moreover, in Amarjit Singh (supra), the appeal was filed by the Union of India through the Director of Enforcement. The Union of India was sui juris and section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided for initiation of litigation by the Central government in that matter. The learned Tribunal further erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs, (2020) 10 SCC 706, in as much as the observations made therein were because the defendant wanted to file some documents which were l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Director was also one of the authorities under the said Act. When an order of the learned Adjudicating Authority prejudicially affected the objects of the said Act, it was also the Enforcement Directorate, which was competent and authorised to challenge the said adjudication order before the learned Tribunal. The Assistant Director was acting on behalf of the Government and these officers were the links with the Government and not its delegates. On this, reliance was placed on A. Sanjeevi Naidu and Ors. Vs. State of Madras and Anr, (1970) 1 SCC 443. 5. We heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the memorandum of appeal, the impugned judgment and order and the other orders referred to as also the notes of arguments submitted by the parties. 6. The prime contention of the appellant is that in view of Section 26(1) of the PML Act, the Director of the Enforcement Directorate and not the Enforcement Directorate itself, through its Assistant Director, was entitled to file an Appeal before the learned Tribunal. According to the appellant, the Directorate did not come within the sweep of the word 'person' as defined in section 2(s) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a spirit of pragmatism and shuns thwarting actions taken under the said Act merely on the excuse of technicalities. 14. It is germane to notice that although section 42 of the PML Act provides for an appeal by an aggrieved person, appeals galore are filed by the Directorate, even through the Assistant Director, and these are not shut out by Courts on the anvil of section 2 (s) of the Act. 15. Therefore, now we need to delve into the issue of whether the Enforcement Directorate could also invoke the locus of an 'aggrieved person' in filing an appeal under section 26 of the PML Act. 16. Section 2(s) of the PMLA Act, defining the word 'person', albeit by enumerating what it would include, does not render it implausible that it may include the Directorate or any of its authorities within its ambit. It is an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive one. 17. In S K Gupta Anr vs K P Jain Anr, (1979) 3 SCC 54, a Three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, laid down as follows- 24. The noticeable feature of this definition is that it is inclusive definition and where in a definition clause the word 'include' is used it is so done in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
