Enforcement Directorate's Actions Upheld with Temporary Stay Order

The court upheld the maintainability of writ petitions challenging notices under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, issued by the Enforcement Directorate. The Adjudicating Authority's provisional attachment orders were confirmed, allowing for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Due to the national lockdown, the court directed respondents not to enforce the notices for fifteen days or until the Tribunal's hearing, whichever is earlier. Additionally, the Tribunal could consider appeal documents without physical signatures during the lockdown, with appellants required to rectify any defects post-lockdown. The court disposed of the petitions based on these directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions challenging notices under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Provisional attachment orders confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act.
4. Urgent hearing for interim relief before the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Direction to respondents regarding impugned notices during the national lockdown.
6. Consideration of appeal documents by the Tribunal in absence of physical signatures.

Analysis:
1. The petitions challenged notices issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, by the Enforcement Directorate seeking possession of properties. The Adjudicating Authority's order confirming provisional attachment was the basis for these notices. The Central Government Standing Counsel raised objections to the maintainability of the petitions, but the court did not delve into these objections due to the order proposed.

2. The Act allows for an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the Adjudicating Authority's orders. The Enforcement Directorate's notices did not immediately require physical possession of the properties, and a ten-day notice was to be given before taking such possession. The petitioners undertook to file appeals against the Adjudicating Authority's order promptly and requested an urgent hearing for interim relief before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Considering the national lockdown's impact on judicial functioning, the court directed the respondents not to enforce the impugned notices for fifteen days or until the Appellate Tribunal takes up the matter, whichever is earlier. This directive aimed to address potential delays in seeking relief from the Appellate Tribunal and did not touch upon the merits of the disputes between the parties.

4. In light of the challenging situation during the lockdown, the court allowed the Tribunal to consider appeal documents even without physical signatures if signed by the counsel, with the appellants required to rectify any defects promptly after the lockdown is lifted. The court disposed of the writ petitions and related applications based on the above directions and considerations.

---