Appeals under Section 26 of PMLA: Tribunal's discretion on maintainability and procedural objections

The Tribunal found that while appeals under Section 26 of PMLA may be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, it depends on the specific facts of each case. The appellants' objections regarding procedural defects were noted, but the Tribunal suggested raising them before the Adjudicating Authority. It was concluded that there was no significant hardship at that stage, and the matter was disposed of with directions for further proceedings by the Adjudicating Authority, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals against the issuance of show cause notice under Section 8(1) of PMLA.
2. Non-compliance with procedural requirements under PMLA and related rules.
3. Validity of reasons to believe and issuance of notice under Section 8(1) of PMLA.
4. Hardship and prejudice to appellants due to procedural defects.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals:
The respondent argued that the appeals filed by the appellants are not maintainable, as the Adjudicating Authority had not passed an order but merely issued a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of PMLA. The appellants contended that the issuance of the show cause notice itself could be challenged under Section 26(1) of PMLA. The Tribunal examined various judgments, including those from the High Courts of Delhi and Madras, which indicated that appeals might be maintainable in exceptional circumstances where there is great hardship, abuse of law, injustice, irreparable loss, and great prejudice. The Tribunal concluded that while appeals under Section 26 may be maintainable, it depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

2. Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The appellants raised concerns about non-compliance with procedural requirements, such as the failure to provide a 30-day notice as stipulated in Section 8(1) of PMLA, and discrepancies in the recording of reasons to believe. The respondent admitted to certain discrepancies but argued that these could be cured under Section 68 of PMLA. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were not named as accused in the FIR/RC, and the seizure memo was contrary to the prescribed rules. However, the Tribunal suggested that these procedural objections could be raised before the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Validity of Reasons to Believe and Issuance of Notice:
The appellants contended that the reasons to believe and the issuance of the notice were based on non-application of mind and were defective. The Tribunal examined the reasons to believe recorded on 10.04.2019, which indicated that the documents seized on 01.03.2019 were not perused properly. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was some substance in the appellants' arguments but suggested that these issues could be addressed by the Adjudicating Authority, which would have to consider and decide the objections raised by the appellants.

4. Hardship and Prejudice to Appellants:
The Tribunal considered whether the appellants would suffer hardship and prejudice due to the procedural defects. It was noted that the respondent had merely seized two files containing papers, and the appellants would be entitled to receive copies of these documents under Section 21(2) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that there was no significant hardship at this stage and directed that the objections raised by the appellants be decided by the Adjudicating Authority within a time-bound manner.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed that the hearing should be conducted by another Hon'ble Member (Law) to ensure fairness and impartiality. The present appeals and all pending applications were disposed of, with the Adjudicating Authority given the liberty to fix the matters for further proceedings. The period spent in filing and disposing of the present appeals was excluded from the 180 days provided under Section 5 of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to pass the order on merit without any influence from the Tribunal's order. No costs were awarded, and a copy of the order was to be given 'Dasti' to the counsel for the parties.

---