Procedural gaps in appeals under PMLA section 42 prompted directions on amendment, service of condonation, and limitation review.

The Original Side Rules were noted as lacking a specific case code and hearing procedure for appeals under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that omission was treated as an administrative matter for possible amendment by the Chief Justice and the appropriate committee. The explanation to section 42 was also identified as raising a maintainability question where the respondent lies outside the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the appeal had already been assigned, the Court confined itself to procedure, directed service of the condonation application, and called for a limitation report; no final ruling was given on merits or maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Original Side Rules required amendment to provide a case code and hearing procedure for appeals under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; whether an appeal under section 42 could be entertained on the Original Side where the respondent was outside the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction; and the procedural course for the time-barred appeal and the accompanying application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The existing rules covered appeals under several enactments but did not specifically provide for appeals under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The absence of a separate code and procedure was treated as an administrative omission requiring the attention of the Chief Justice and the appropriate committee for possible amendment of the Original Side Rules. The explanation to section 42, as to territorial competence when the Central Government is the appellant, was noted as raising a further issue regarding maintainability on the Original Side when the respondent is outside the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Since the appeal had already been assigned, the Court proceeded only on the procedural aspect and directed service of the condonation application and a report on limitation.

Outcome: No final adjudication was made on the merits of the appeal or on the maintainability issue. Administrative and procedural directions were issued, and the condonation application was directed to be served and listed.

---