Appellate Tribunal rules on delay challenge in Money Laundering Act appeal

The Appellate Tribunal ATPMLA heard an appeal against an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging a delay in passing the order within 180 days. The appellant argued that the delay rendered the order invalid, citing statutory provisions. However, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's objection, noting that previous decisions had allowed for fresh adjudication within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal decided to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits, scheduling the next hearing for 7th July, 2017.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed against order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for not being passed within 180 days.
2. Argument regarding extension of time period under PMLA.
3. Reference to various judgments supporting the submission.
4. Respondent's submission on the order passed on merits.
5. Dispute over application of proposition of law.
6. Previous appeal's decision and compliance with the order.
7. Failure to challenge previous order and denial of its benefit.
8. Acknowledgment of due process not being followed.
9. Rejection of appellant's objection and decision to hear the appeal on merits.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ATPMLA was filed against an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging that the order dated 30.12.2015 by the Adjudicating Authority was passed beyond the stipulated 180 days from the provisional attachment order of 10th March, 2015. The appellant contended that the order was invalid and contrary to the Act due to the delay. The appellant's counsel argued that the time period could not be extended beyond 180 days, even with consent, citing statutory provisions under PMLA. Reference was made to several judgments to support this argument.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the order passed on 11th August, 2015, granting six months for deciding the matter on merits, was not challenged by the appellant in the High Court. It was emphasized that the impugned order was passed after complying with the order of 11th August, 2015. While acknowledging the strict application of legal propositions, it was asserted that the facts and circumstances of the present case were different.

The Tribunal noted that in a previous appeal by the same appellants, the contention regarding insufficient time to file a reply and defend the case was accepted, leading to the impugned order being set aside for fresh adjudication within six months. The appellants did not challenge this decision, and it was highlighted that due process had not been followed as per the direction issued on 11th August, 2015. Consequently, the objection raised by the appellant was rejected, and the Tribunal decided to hear the appeal on its merits.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal scheduled the next hearing for 7th July, 2017, to proceed with the appeal based on its merits.

---