9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the order passed in Suo Motu petition dated 23rd of March, 2020 never meant to curtail any provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other statute which was enacted to protect personal liberty of a person. Considering the provisions contained under Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the PMLA in the light of the above pronouncement, it is found that Section 5(1) does not relate to filing of any pleading but relates to the period of validity of the order of attachment. By virtue of Section 5(3) of the PMLA, the order of attachment under Section 5(1) ceases to have effect on expiry of the prescribed period. Thus, for such a provision, the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period for filing the pleading will not apply. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that the benefit of extended period of limitation by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court from time to time in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 will not be available for extending the validity period of provisional attac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of May, 2022, a prayer was made to set aside the provisional order of attachment and the original complaint being OC No. 1550 of 2021 and ECIR being ECIR/06/KLZO/2020. 3. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 have succeeded before the learned Single Judge. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were not permitted to file the affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was decided on the first date itself. He further submits that by virtue of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 extending the period of limitation, the 180 days period prescribed under Section 5 of the PMLA also got extended. He has also submitted that learned Single Judge has set aside not only the order under Section 5 of the PMLA but also the consequential proceedings including the proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA which are independent proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 opposing the appeal has submitted that opportunity of hearing was given before the learned Single Judge and that the writ petition was not decided on the first date. He further submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in first proviso, any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act. Provided also that for purposes of computing the period of one hundred and eighty days, the period during which the proceedings under this section is stayed by the High Court, shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order shall be counted. 10. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the PMLA, the provisional order of attachment passed under sub-section (1) ceases to have effected after 180 days or on passing the order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, whichever is earlier. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 reads as under: (3) Every order of attachment made under subsection (1) shall cease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 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. 14. By the order dated 10th of January, 2022, the earlier order dated 23rd of March, 2020 was restored and it was directed that the period from 15th of March, 2020 to 28th of February, 2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. The said order dated 10th of January, 2022 reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 takes note of the object of the initial order as under: 1. 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 special laws (both Central and/or State) due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the above orders passed in SMW (C) 3 of 2020 on the limitation prescribed for filing a chargesheet by police under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. has found that the benefit of extending limitation provided in the Suo Motu Writ Petition is not applicable in such proceedings. Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Kasi (supra) has held that: 17. The limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/applications/suits/appeals /all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment has clearly noted in suo motu petition that the order was passed for extending the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings and the order was for the benefit of those who wanted to take remedy, whose remedy were barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the order passed in Suo Motu petition dated 23rd of March, 2020 never meant to curtail any provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other statute which was enacted to protect personal liberty of a person. 19. Considering the provisions contained under Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the PMLA in the light of the above pronouncement, it is found that Section 5(1) does not relate to filing of any pleading but relates to the period of validity of the order of attachment. By virtue of Section 5(3) of the PMLA, the order of attachment under Section 5(1) ceases to have effect on expiry of the prescribed period. Thus, for such a provision, the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period for filing the pleading will not apply. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 passed in W.P. (C)-IPD 4/2022 Review Pet. 102 of 2011 in the matter of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and connected matters but that was a case relating to extension of limitation for filing the opposition to trademark application, hence, covered by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112 but that was also a case relating to extension of period for filing the written statement, hence, covered by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020. 22. In view of the above analysis, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that the benefit of extended period of limitation by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court from time to time in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 will not be available for extending the validity period of provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file the writ statement, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the proceedings dated 16th of June, 2022, 20th of June, 2022, 22nd of June, 2022 and 23rd of June, 2022 before the learned Single Judge in WPA 9699 of 2022 which reveal that the petition as heard by the learned Single Judge at least on four occasions in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants. None of these proceedings contain any request on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants to file affidavit-in-opposition. Learned Single Judge has heard the learned counsel for the appellants and thereafter, passed the impugned order. Hence, this Court does not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. 28. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in setting aside the provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021 but has committed an error in allowing the petition with all consequential benefits, the effect of which is that the proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA have also come to an end. 29. Hence, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge granting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
