High Court safeguards appeal rights in Money Laundering Act case, emphasizes timely filing.

The High Court of Madras addressed a case involving a provisional order of assessment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite the appeal limitation period not expiring, an eviction notice was issued prematurely. The court recognized the petitioner's intent to appeal and emphasized the statutory right of appeal under Section 26(3) should not be hindered. The court directed the petitioner to file the appeal within the limitation period and seek protective orders from the Appellate Tribunal by a specified date. Failure to do so would allow the respondent to proceed with eviction, with provisions for seeking court redress if faced with uncontrollable difficulties.

---

---

Issues:
Provisional order of assessment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Right of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 26(3) of the Act; Notice of eviction issued before the expiry of the appeal limitation period; Challenge to the notice of eviction through a writ petition.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras dealt with a case involving a provisional order of assessment passed against the petitioner, her son, and her grand-daughter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was served with a copy of the order on 29.9.2014. The key issue revolved around the right of appeal to the Tribunal provided under Section 26(3) of the Act. Despite the appeal limitation period of 45 days not expiring, the first respondent issued a notice of eviction on 10.10.2014, prompting the petitioner to challenge the eviction notice through a writ petition.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had taken a demand draft on 10.10.2014 for filing an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, demonstrating the intent to exercise the statutory right of appeal within the prescribed time limit. The court acknowledged that Section 26(3) confers a statutory right of appeal that should not be thwarted by premature dispossession before the appeal limitation period lapses.

Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within the limitation period before the Appellate Tribunal and apply for a stay. The petitioner was granted time until 31.12.2014 to secure protective orders from the Tribunal. If no protective order was obtained by the specified date, the first respondent could proceed with the eviction notice. However, if the petitioner faced difficulties beyond their control, they were permitted to seek redress from the court. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on the parties involved, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the court's decision.

---