Court directs petitioner to Appellate Tribunal under PMLA for appeal, stresses importance of addressing applications promptly.

The court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for further proceedings, maintaining the attachment of the bank account during the appeal. The Adjudicating Authority's failure to consider the petitioner's application led to this decision, emphasizing the importance of addressing the application before final adjudication. The court highlighted the availability of an alternate remedy through the Appellate Tribunal, disposing of the petition with instructions for the petitioner to seek relief through the appellate process.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to final order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Consideration of specific application by Adjudicating Authority; Appealability of impugned order under Section 26 of PML Act; Interpretation of judgments in J. Sekar v Union of India and Seema Garg v. Deputy Director; Direction for Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the final order of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming the attachment of their bank account. The petitioner had filed a specific application with various prayers, which had not been considered or disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order lacked proper application of mind and highlighted discrepancies in the attachment of the bank account. Despite a previous court order restricting the frozen amount, the entire bank account was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement. The respondent's counsel contended that the impugned order was appealable under Section 26 of the PML Act, suggesting the petitioner should seek remedies through the Appellate Tribunal.

The court noted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the petitioner's application and referenced judgments on the issue of supplying "reasons to believe." While the petitioner cited precedents supporting their position, the respondent mentioned a stay on one of the judgments pending before the Supreme Court. The court acknowledged the importance of deciding the application before final adjudication but emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PML Act. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal for further proceedings, ensuring the continuation of the previous court order regarding the bank account attachment during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by instructing the petitioner to seek relief from the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PML Act. The Appellate Tribunal was tasked with evaluating the petitioner's application and subsequently hearing the appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The court specified that any modifications to the previous court order should be presented to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration during the appeal process.

---