Court grants liberty to raise objections before Adjudicating Authority under PMLA Section 8

The court disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to raise objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority can proceed under Section 8 of the PMLA, with any action regarding possession takeover subject to principles from a specific case. All substantive arguments are left open for the parties involved.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Competence and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority comprising a single member.
3. Apprehension of deprivation of possession of properties if PAO is confirmed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO):
The batch of petitions challenges the validity of the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioners argue that the principal allegations in the ECIR were against Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd., which had previously contested similar PAOs. The court had entertained these challenges and issued interim orders allowing the Adjudicating Authority to pass final orders but not to implement them without the court's leave. The petitioners in the current batch do not rely on the principles enunciated in Vikas WSP and Others vs. Directorate Enforcement and Another, which held that the Adjudicating Authority becomes functus officio after 180 days from the PAO issuance.

2. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The petitioners questioned the competence of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member, arguing that it should consist of multiple members as per Section 6 of the PMLA. This issue was addressed in J. Sekar V Union of India, where it was held that the Adjudicating Authority could function with single-member benches. The court noted that Section 6(5)(b) of the PMLA allows the Chairperson to constitute benches with one or two members, and the term "bench" does not necessarily imply plurality. The court rejected the contention that every matter must be heard by a bench comprising the Chairperson and members, emphasizing that single-member benches are permissible under the PMLA.

3. Apprehension of Deprivation of Possession:
The petitioners expressed concern that the continuation of proceedings by the Adjudicating Authority might lead to the deprivation of their properties if the PAO is confirmed. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others, which stated that taking possession of the property under Section 8(4) of the PMLA should be an exception and not a rule. The need to take possession arises only for giving effect to a confiscation order, and until such an order is passed, there is no reason to hasten the process of taking possession. The court assured that the Adjudicating Authority would be guided by these principles, alleviating the petitioners' apprehensions.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of with the liberty for the petitioners to present their objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority is free to proceed under Section 8 of the PMLA, but any action regarding the take-over of possession must adhere to the principles laid down in Vijay Madanlal. All contentions on merits remain open for respective parties.

---