Tribunal sets aside order, remands for fresh adjudication. Property attachment remains.

The Tribunal reviewed and set aside its previous order, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to fix a hearing date within 45 days and pass an order within 45 days of the hearing. The appellant and defendants were instructed not to sell or create any third-party interest in the property during the remand proceedings, and the provisional attachment order remained in effect. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was based on a question of law and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review of Tribunal’s Order
2. Powers of Adjudicating Authority under PMLA
3. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice
4. Jurisdiction and Powers of Review by Adjudicating Authority

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of Tribunal’s Order:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 35(F) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), seeking review of the Tribunal’s order dated 12.12.2014. The original appeal was against an order dated 2nd May 2014, passed under Section 8(4) of PMLA, which asked the appellant to vacate a residential house. The Tribunal had allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to invoke the remedy under proviso to Section 8(2) of PMLA. The appellant argued that this withdrawal rendered him remediless, contrary to judicial principles and the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. The Tribunal reviewed its order dated 12.12.2014, setting aside the confirmation order dated 31.03.2014 and remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication.

2. Powers of Adjudicating Authority under PMLA:
The Adjudicating Authority’s powers to adjudicate under PMLA flow from Section 8. Section 8(1) requires issuing a show cause notice to any person believed to have committed an offense under Section 3 of PMLA or is in possession of proceeds of crime. The proviso to Section 8(2) mandates that if the property is claimed by a person other than the one to whom the notice was issued, such person must be given an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority does not have the power to review its own orders as per Section 11 of PMLA, which only provides powers similar to those of a civil court for summoning, enforcing attendance, and other procedural matters.

3. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice, stating that any person claiming a right in the property must be heard before a final order of confirmation of attachment is passed. The proviso to Section 8(2) ensures that such persons are given an opportunity to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering. The Tribunal disagreed with its earlier decision in the Central Bank of India case, which allowed post-decisional hearings, stating that this would lead to the Adjudicating Authority reviewing its own orders, which is not permissible under PMLA.

4. Jurisdiction and Powers of Review by Adjudicating Authority:
The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority becomes functus officio after issuing a confirmation order under Section 8(3) and cannot review its own orders, as no such power is provided under PMLA. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in SBI v. S.M. Goyal, which described the concept of functus officio and emphasized that once an authority makes a final decision, it cannot review it unless expressly permitted by statute. The Tribunal also cited the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, where the Supreme Court held that tribunals are creatures of statute and cannot exercise powers not expressly conferred by the statute.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal reviewed and set aside its previous order dated 12.12.2014, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to fix a hearing date within 45 days and pass an order within 45 days of the hearing. The appellant and defendants were instructed not to sell or create any third-party interest in the property during the pendency of remand proceedings, and the provisional attachment order remained in effect. The Tribunal emphasized that its decision was based on a question of law and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

---