9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition was filed way back in September, 2021. The Supreme Court in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [ 2021 (11) TMI 387 - SC ORDER ] had held that the period between 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 would not be counted for the purpose of limitation. It is accordingly directed that the present writ petition shall be treated as an appeal challenging the PAO dated 27th November, 2020. This appeal to the PAO shall be considered by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act in accordance with law along with the two pending appeals filed by the ED. The stay application filed before this Court shall be considered as a stay application before the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act. Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 10166/2021 & CM APPL.31354/2021 AND W.P.(C) 10613/2022 & CM APPL.30735/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2023 - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms Vidula Mehrotra, Ms. Kartika Sharm, Mr. Chirag Madan, Mr. Somesh Tiwari Ms. Utsav Saxena Advs. (M: 9833796568) For the Respondents : Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Gaurav Kumar, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed on 13.11.2019, the respondents could not have issued the impugned PAO or initiated any further proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. 6. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. While urging that the present petition is not maintainable, he prays for, and is granted, four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. 7. List along with W.P(C)8421/2021 on 07.01.2022. 8. Till the next date, the adjudicating authority will not proceed with the matter and will therefore fix a date after the next date of hearing before this Court. 4. It is the submission of Mr. Anupam Sharma, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents that the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act has now been constituted and the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhimanyu Bandari, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of this writ pending before this Court, the Petitioners had not filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 6. Paragraph 2(kk) in the impugned PAO i.e., PAO No. 03 of 2020, dated 27th November, 2020 reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide earlier PAO-01/2017 dated 04.04.2017) at the end of M/s. PIL, (ii) Rs 20.43.150/- balance amount in the 291 accounts out of the total 445 bank accounts of unsuspecting villagers shell companies, (iii) Rs. 39,52,496/- in the hand of the three sister concerns i.e. M/s. Xpress Mining Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bapu Agriculture Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, (iv) 2Kg Gold (valued at Rs.60,00,000) and Rs. 40,00,000/- against this amount transferred by Shri Babulal Agrawal out of which Rs. 39,81,000/- seized by CBI, ACU-V, New Delhi, (v) Rs.15,00,000/- seized by Income Tax Department, Raipur from the bank locker owned by Shri Babulal Agrawal. 7. A perusal of the impugned provisional attachment order would show that the case of the Petitioner is that in an earlier round, on the same very transactions, the Adjudicating Authority had issued a PAO dated 4th April, 2017 and vide orders passed on 14th May, 2018 and 27th June, 2018, the Adjudicating Authority (AA) had come to the conclusion that no case of money laundering is made out. 8. Subsequent to the orders of the ld. AA, the ED preferred appeals challenging the orders of the ld. Adjudicating Authority. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of res judicata is refuted by ld. Counsel for the ED. 12. In the present petitions before the Court, since the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act has now been constituted, in the opinion of this Court, the entire issue would have to be comprehensively considered by the Appellate Tribunal. There are already two pending appeals filed by the ED in respect of the earlier order of the AA. The present PAO is now challenged before this Court. Therefore, the entertaining of this petition, at this stage, when the Tribunal stands constituted could result in multiplicity of proceedings and also there is a possibility of conflicting rulings, which ought to be avoided. 13. Considering that the impugned provisional attachment order by the ED was of 27th November, 2020 and the present writ petition was filed way back in September, 2021. The Supreme Court in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation had held that the period between 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 would not be counted for the purpose of limitation. 14. It is accordingly directed that the present writ petition shall be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
