9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.P. Garments Private Limited and the respondent no. 4 is a silent director of M/s. K.P. Garments Private Limited. The appellant no. 1, Directorate of Enforcement, had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) being ECIR No. ECIR/06/KLZO/2021 dated 17th of February, 2019 against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and their companies on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against them. The provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021 was passed under the provisions of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA'). The show-cause notice dated 18th of November, 2021 was issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4, who had submitted their reply on 3rd of January, 2022. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 took the plea in the petition that 180 days mandatory period for confirmation of the provisional attachment order had expired on 31st of March, 2022 and before that, the competent authority had failed to pass any formal order of confirmation or extension of validity of the provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021, therefore, the authority had become functus officio. In the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that - (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorized to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of Covid-19 virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings." 13. A perusal of the above order reveals that the period of limitation was extended on account of the difficulties faced in filing petitions, applications, suits, appeals and all other proceedings during the pandemic. By the order dated 8th of March, 2021, the period was extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing as under: "2....... 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A 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." 16. Learned Single Judge has duly taken note of the aforesaid orders and has rightly found that the period of limitation was extended for instituting a suit, filing a claim/counter-claim or an application in furtherance of the remedy provided under the statute. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Kasi vs. State through The Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 529 while considering the issue of applicability of the above orders passed in SMW (C) 3 of 2020 on the limitation prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute which was enacted to protect the Personal Liberty of a person. The right of prosecution to file a charge sheet even after a period of 60 days/90 days is not barred. The prosecution can very well file a charge sheet after 60 days/90 days but without filing a charge sheet they cannot detain an accused beyond a said period when the accused prays to the court to set him at liberty due to non-filing of the charge sheet within the period prescribed. The right of prosecution to carry on investigation and submit a charge sheet is not akin to right of liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 and reflected in other statutes including Section 167, Cr.P.C. Following observations of Madras High Court in the impugned judgment are clearly contrary to the order dated 23.03.2020 of this Court:- "...The Supreme Court order eclipses all provisions prescribing period of limitation until further orders. Undoubtedly, it eclipses the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also..."" 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has clearly noted in suo motu petition that the order was passed for extending th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of November, 2021 in MAT 1168 of 2021 the matter of Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) & Anr. vs. Sh. Gobinda Das & Ors., wherein the Division Bench took the view that the appellant is a litigant. The fact of the case reveals that in that case, the hearing was concluded by the adjudicating authority and final order was passed but no appeal was preferred. Against this order, SLP (C) No. 921 of 2022 in the matter of Gobinda Das & Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) & Ors. was preferred and Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the Special Leave Petition by order dated 28th of February, 2022 by taking note of the fact that eventually, the final attachment order was passed on 9th of November, 2021 and that the observation relating to vacating of finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is a nonlitigant had no bearing on the proceedings against final attachment. Hence, the said matter stands on altogether different footing. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance upon the order of the learned Single Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 18th of May, 2022 passed in W.P. (C)-IPD 4/2022 & Review Pet. 102 of 2011 in the matter of Dr. Reddys Laboratories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands concluded by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, setting aside of the order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA will not affect the adjudication proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Greatship (India) Limited reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1262 has also submitted that alternate remedy was available, therefore, writ petition was not maintainable but in the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition arose as the petition was filed against the order of assessment. That apart, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not indicate that the issue of availability of alternate remedy was raised. 27. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has passed the order in the first hearing itself without giving an opportunity to the appellants to file the writ statement, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the proceedings dated 16th of June, 2022, 20th of June, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
