9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors who are the petitioners before this Court. The petitioner no. 1 replied to the impugned order on 3rd January, 2022. There is no other subsequent factual development on record after the petitioner's reply. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has now called the petitioners for a hearing on 27th June, 2022 in continuation of the ECIR case of 2020 dated 17th February, 2020. The petitioners are before this Court for contending that the ED cannot travel beyond the statutory limit of 180 days or take the benefit of the orders passed by the Supreme Court for the benefit of litigants during the Covid period. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the question of life and liberty of the petitioners would override all other conditions in the present case. It is also submitted that the 180 days expired on 31st March, 2022; taken from the provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021. Learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, relies on the Supreme Court orders passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.(S) 3/2020 to urge that by the said orders the limitation period provided in the PMLA also stood extended. Counsel submits that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge construing Section 5(3) of the PMLA as restricting the orders of attachment to a period of 180 days. The respondents were restrained from taking any other action on the basis of the provisional order of attachment on that basis. Gobindo Das vs Union of India; AIR 2021 CAL 344, was also a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court where, relying on S. Kasi, the orders of the Supreme Court were interpreted to benefit litigants who have to avail of the remedy under the applicable statute. As stated above, this order was vacated by the Division Bench in MAT 1168 of 2021. In S. Kasi vs State, a 3- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Supreme Court on 23rd March, 2020 in the Suo Motu writ petition was to protect litigants/lawyers whose petitions/applications/suits/ appeals and all other proceedings would become time barred by reason of not being able to physically file such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute. As stated above, Prakash Corporates restricted S. Kasi to the facts in that particular case. Therefore, the present po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court would be reinforced by the subsequent order dated 8th March, 2021 passed in the Suo Motu writ petition. In paragraph 2 of the said order, the intention is expressed in the following manner. "2....... 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." The order dated 10th January, 2022 (relied on by the respondents before this Court) also refers to the object of the first order, i.e. of 23rd March, 2020, in the very first line. The order starts with. "In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is in relation to the prescribed period of limitation in instituting a proceeding. The statutory time frame of 180 days has been prescribed under Section 5(1)(b) of the PMLA where the designated Authority may by order in writing, provisionally attach a property being proceeds of crime for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of the order. The third proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA is an aid to the computation of the 180 days window. Section 5(3) is set out below- "5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering.− (1).......... (3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that subsection or on the date of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 8, whichever is earlier." Section 5(3) is a clear embargo on the order of attachment continuing to have effect after the expiry of 180 days. Section 5(1) designates the authority and the steps to be taken for proceeding against any person who is in possession of any proceeds of crime. The section is hence concerned with the procedure to be undertaken for provisional attachment of a property subject to the fulfillment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n debited leaving the balance at zero despite the order of attachment. Prakash Corporates dealt with the prescribed statutory time period for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. Prakash Corporates also recognised the fact that the decision in S. Kasi was concerned with filing of the chargesheet under Section 167(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and hence would not apply to filing of written statements beyond the prescribed time-limit. The reasoning in S. Kasi would apply to the present case. The Supreme Court recognised that the 23rd March, 2020 order in the Suo Motu writ petition was for the benefit of those whose remedy may be barred by time because of not being able to physically come to Court to file proceedings. The Supreme Court made a distinction between the benefit given to litigants and extension of time for filing of a chargesheet by the police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court also noted the element of personal liberty of a person which was required to be protected. Although, the right of the petitioners before the Court is more to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
