Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (7) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 015 was rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 02 of 2015 filed by Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University) against the Joint Director and the Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India and the Registrar/Administrative Officer, Adjudicating Authority. 2. EIILM University had prayed for setting aside the show cause notice dated 03.02.2015 issued by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) and the subsequent proceedings consequential thereto. 3. The principal ground seeking to quash the show cause notice under section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 by the Adjudicating Au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngs before the Adjudicating Authority was stayed by this Court by order dated 02.04.2015, the period of attachment prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 5 to exclude the period spent during the pendency of the case before this Court. 6. An application for modification/clarification of the judgment dated 22.09.2015 passed by this Court has been filed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement on 08.11.2022 after nearly eight years. The applicant prays for clarification as to whether Member (Judicial) and Member from the field of Law of the Adjudicating Authority under section 6 (3) (a) (ii) of PMLA, 2002 are the same? 7. The application states that pursuant to the judgment dated 22.09.2015 of this Court and in compliance there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order dated 15.06.2017 while disposing six appeals filed against the order dated 01.12.2015 in O.C. No. 409 of 2015 and order dated 03.03.2015 in O.C. No. 381 of 2014 remanded the two provisional attachment orders to the Adjudicating Authority holding that this Court had directed the matter to be decided by Member (Judicial) appointed under section 6 (3) (a) of PMLA, 2002 who has to be a District Judge and the Government has not appointed Judicial Member as directed by this Court. 12. According to the applicant since then the provisional attachment orders are kept in abeyance and status quo has been maintained. 13. It is also stated that the appeal before this Court against the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. 18. A reading of the judgment dated 22.09.2015 makes it evident that it was precisely the case of the petitioner that the constitution of the Bench without a Judicial Member was not proper. This lis was contested by the parties including the present applicant and by a reason judgment the lis was decided by the learned Single Judge. Evidently and admittedly this judgment dated 22.09.2015 has not been appealed against. 19. The Supreme Court in numerous judgments has held very clearly that such practice of filing application for modification/clarification of judgment rendered must be deprecated as in actual what it seeks is a review or revision of the judgment which is n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions of the litigants who are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades together. 22. It was open for the applicant to have preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge or an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court or even a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 22.09.2015 within the prescribed time if they were not satisfied with it. However, the applicant chose not to do so for almost eight years. The application in fact states that it sought to comply with the judgment dated 22.09.2015. The present application for modification/clarification is evidently a device to persuade this Court to revisit, reopen and reverse the judgment dated 22.09.2015. This is clearly impermissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates