Tribunal Dismisses Joint Appeal on Property Attachment for Procedural Non-Compliance

The Tribunal dismissed the joint appeal by twenty appellants regarding the confirmation of property attachment due to non-compliance with procedural rules and failure to file within the statutory period. The appeal was deemed not maintainable, emphasizing the need for separate appeals by each appellant with proper documentation and fees. The Tribunal also rejected the pending application and ordered parties to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position.
2. Allegations of money laundering.
3. Legitimacy of joint appeals by multiple appellants.
4. Limitation period for filing appeals.
5. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position:
It was alleged that Shri S. Muralidharan, Branch Manager at Syndicate Bank, conspired with Shri S. Kumar @ Vijayakumar and others to sanction housing loans without adhering to basic banking norms. These loans were sanctioned based on forged documents and were misutilized, resulting in a significant financial loss for the bank. The CBI registered a criminal case and filed eight chargesheets invoking Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on the CBI's FIR and chargesheets, alleging that the loans were part of a money laundering scheme. The investigation revealed that loans were taken in the names of various persons but were actually availed and enjoyed by Shri S. Kumar @ Vijayakumar. The properties purchased with these loans were attached under provisional attachment order No. 13/2014, and the attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Legitimacy of Joint Appeals by Multiple Appellants:
The appeal was filed jointly by twenty appellants against the order confirming the attachment of properties. The appellants argued that since the provisional attachment and the adjudicating authority's order were common, a joint appeal should be maintainable. However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Bhagirathi Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. & Others, which held that joint appeals by multiple appellants are not maintainable. Each aggrieved person must file a separate appeal, as the issues and arguments for each appellant could differ significantly.

4. Limitation Period for Filing Appeals:
The appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of forty-five days without an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period for each appellant would be computed separately based on the date of service of the impugned order. The appellants failed to disclose the dates of service or provide sufficient cause for the delay, leading to procedural deficiencies in their appeal.

5. Compliance with Procedural Rules for Filing Appeals:
The Tribunal highlighted the procedural requirements under Section 26 of the PMLA and the Prevention of Money-laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005. Each appellant must file an appeal in the prescribed form, accompanied by the appropriate fee and documents. The joint appeal filed by the twenty appellants did not comply with these requirements, as only one fee was paid, and the appeal did not include separate declarations or arguments for each appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the joint appeal filed by the twenty appellants as not maintainable due to non-compliance with procedural rules and the absence of a valid application for condonation of delay. Each appellant was required to file a separate appeal with the appropriate fee and documentation. The pending application in the appeal was also dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.

---