9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 filed on 28-1-2021 for listing and hearing of the appeal has been filed on the grounds stated therein. 3. Accordingly, the prayer for urgent listing is considered, allowed and disposed of. FPA-PMLA-3884/DLI/2021 & MP-PMLA-8123/DLI/2021 (Stay) 4. Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') against the order dated 19-01-2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under PMLA, passed in O.A. No. 404/2021. 5. Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Nitesh Rana, learned counsel for the respondent (ED) accepts notice. 6. Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed an application seeking stay of the operation of impugned order dated 19-1-2021. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is aggrieved. At this stage the appellant is aggrieved on two counts, one is that he has filed an application on 6-1-2021, which was heard and thereafter another application was filed on 18-1-2021 with a request seeking adjudication of the pending application first which have a direct bearing on the issue at stage of the final arguments in the present OA. It is also contended that the appellant have cited the judgment/order dated 21-4-2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad in the matter titled as "Directorate of Enforcement v. Appellate Tribunal (PMLA)" W.P. No. 8426 of 2015. On this application also there is no order. While arguing this he has referred to Para 35 of the rejoinder filed by the Enforcement Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35 of the PMLA, 2002 to direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the applications before proceeding with the case. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent (ED) strongly raised objection and submitted that at the first instance the appeal is not maintainable and that the impugned order herein is not an order and is only a proceeding recorded. The appellant, in the garb of proceedings, not of an order, has filed the present appeal and that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any backing of law. It is further contended by him that the reasons to believe under section 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002 has already been supplied to the appellant and that during the course of hearing it was conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore proceeding further. The order dated 19-1-2021 is an order fixing the argument of the O.A. No.404/2020 on 25-1-2021 and the O.A. is further adjourned to 01-2-2021 for argument and that admittedly there is no order on the applications dated 6-1-2021 & 18-01-2021. It appears that the appellant has taken shelter under the garb of the order dated 19-1-2021 to dispose of the applications dated 6-1-2021 & 18-1-2021. Section 26(1) of the PMLA, 2002 provides as below: (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. 13. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that there must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to us the appeal is nonest factum. Therefore we set aside the order of the appellate authority, but at the same time we must address the problem." 15. In the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad, the fact was that this Appellate Tribunal had entertained the appeal against a non-existent order of Adjudicating Authority which came under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad and the order of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside and in exercise of the Writ Jurisdiction their Lordships passed the aforesaid order with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application for interim relief made by respondent therein. 16. The facts and circumstances of the present appeal are d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the matter of Seema Garg v. Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) [2020] 116 taxmann.com 202 The facts and circumstances of these three judgments are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the present appeal. 20. The appellant has also relied on the judgments passed by this Appellate Tribunal in the matters of Satyen Suresh Gathani v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019] 103 taxmann.com 439 (PMLA - AT) and the said judgments are perused. In one of those two judgments the appeals was preferred against the final order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the facts of the other case is also distinguishable and are not applicable to the present facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
