Court grants exemption from filing typed annexures, grants interim relief on property ownership under Money-Laundering Act

The court allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from filing typed copies of annexures. The petitioner's request for interim relief regarding ownership of properties under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was considered, with the court finding prima facie ownership in favor of the petitioner. The court highlighted the non-functionality of the appellate tribunal and directed that the possession takeover of properties be postponed until the next hearing to safeguard the petitioner's right to appeal within the statutory limitation period and ensure compliance with legal procedures. The case was scheduled for a further hearing in four weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Application for exemption from filing typed copy of annexures, Application for interim relief, Ownership of properties under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Right to file an appeal under Section 26 (3) of the Act, 2002, Prima facie ownership of properties, Attachment of properties, Right to file an appeal and limitation period, Non-functionality of appellate tribunal, Enforcement Directorate's investigation, Compliance with statutory procedures.

Exemption from Filing Typed Copy of Annexures:
The petitioner filed an application for exemption from filing typed copies of annexures, which was allowed by the court after due consideration, as the reasons stated in the application were found satisfactory.

Interim Relief Application:
The petitioner raised three grounds against the adjudicating authority's order under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, claiming ownership of two properties provisionally attached. The petitioner argued that the properties were inherited and gifted prior to the scheduled offense, making them not proceeds of crime. Reference was made to relevant documents showing the chain of ownership and transactions leading to the petitioner's possession of the properties.

Right to File an Appeal and Limitation Period:
The petitioner contended that Section 26 (3) of the Act, 2002 provides the right to file an appeal within 45 days of receiving the adjudicating authority's order. The petitioner emphasized that the limitation period for filing an appeal had not expired, and any enforcement action before the deadline would defeat the statutory right to appeal.

Prima Facie Ownership of Properties:
Upon examination of the documents and arguments presented, the court found that the properties in question were inherited and gifted to the petitioner before the scheduled offense, as per the chain of title and relevant records. The court also referenced a judgment stating that properties acquired before the commission of a scheduled offense cannot be attached unless acquired from the offense and held outside the country.

Non-Functionality of Appellate Tribunal:
The court noted that the appellate tribunal under the Act, 2002 was non-functional at the time, emphasizing the importance of not depriving the petitioner of their statutory right to appeal in such circumstances.

Enforcement Directorate's Investigation and Compliance:
The respondent opposed the petitioner's arguments, claiming that the properties were part of a loan guarantee and were gifted to the petitioner to avoid loan repayment. The respondent argued that the provisional attachment was justified, and the proceedings were civil in nature, not requiring a hearing. The court directed the respondent to file a reply and informed the authorities about the order, postponing the possession takeover of the properties until the next hearing.

Conclusion:
The court directed that the notice for taking possession of the properties should not be executed until the next hearing, considering the prima facie ownership details and the pending right to file an appeal within the statutory limitation period. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the statutory procedures and ensuring that the petitioner's rights were not infringed upon prematurely. The case was listed for a further hearing after four weeks.

---