PMLA adjudication limitation extended by Supreme Court order; stay refused as 180-day period had not expired.

The Calcutta High Court noted that the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation extension applied to pending judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, so the 180-day period for adjudication under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had not expired. It also considered that the petitioner had already ated in the adjudication and that final orders were still awaited, which distinguished the cited precedent. On that basis, the plea that the adjudicating authority had become functus officio was not accepted, and the request to stay the proceedings was rejected; any adverse adjudication was to remain subject to the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication proceedings pursuant to the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be stayed on the ground that the 180-day period had expired.

Analysis: The extension granted by the Supreme Court in the suo motu limitation matter was held applicable to pending judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, with the result that the 180-day period for adjudication had not expired. The Court also took note that the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings and that final orders were awaited, which distinguished the case from the relied-upon precedent. In these circumstances, the plea that the adjudicating authority had become functus officio was not accepted.

Conclusion: The prayer to stay the adjudication proceedings was rejected, though any adverse decision of the adjudicating authority was directed to abide by the result of the writ application.

---