High Court corrects Single Judge's decision on Prevention of Money Laundering Act challenge, grants appellant opportunity for full review.

The High Court found issues with the Single Judge's decision in a challenge to an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Concerns were raised about the Adjudicating Authority's status and the lack of opportunity for the appellant. The Court vacated the finding that the appellant was a non-litigant and granted liberty to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's order on all grounds. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need to maintain the status quo and prevent appropriation before a final order, granting respondents liberty to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's order through appropriate legal channels.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding provisional attachment and confirmation order validity.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Adjudicating Authority challenging an order allowing respondents to operate bank accounts due to delay in confirmation order as per PMLA. Appellant argued that the extension due to pandemic did not apply, and litigants should not gain advantage. Single Judge's decision was criticized for deciding without affidavits and treating Adjudicating Authority as a non-litigant.

Analysis:
Appellant contended that PMLA is a complete Code, and respondents participating in proceedings should not have filed a writ petition. Reference was made to Supreme Court decisions, distinguishing them from the current case. Adjudicating Authority confirmed provisional attachment after Single Judge's order, leading to the appeal seeking to set aside the decision.

Analysis:
Respondent's counsel supported Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the statutory limit for confirmation of attachment orders. Allegations were made regarding freezing of bank accounts and unauthorized debiting of funds by the Adjudicating Authority. The importance of a fair hearing and adherence to legal procedures was stressed.

Analysis:
High Court found Single Judge's observations on Adjudicating Authority's status and lack of opportunity for the appellant problematic. Concerns were raised about the impact on other litigants and the need for a fair hearing process. The Court vacated the finding that the appellant was a non-litigant and granted liberty to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's order on all grounds.

Analysis:
The Court observed discrepancies in the attachment process, emphasizing the need to maintain status quo and prevent appropriation before a final order. The appeal was allowed, vacating the previous finding and granting respondents liberty to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's order through appropriate legal channels. Requests for relief regarding withdrawal from bank accounts were directed to the appropriate authority for consideration.

---