Court dismisses writ petition challenging PMLA confirmation order for lack of notice. Liberty granted to approach Appellate Tribunal.

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the confirmation order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for lack of notice to the petitioner. It held that notice to the company sufficed legally, declining to entertain factual disputes on notice. Regarding the jurisdiction to pass the confirmation order beyond 180 days, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing adherence to past decisions. The petitioner was allowed to seek remedy under section 26 of the PMLA, with the jurisdictional issue left open for further pursuit.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to confirmation order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without notice to petitioner; Jurisdiction of second respondent to pass confirmation order beyond 180 days.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to confirmation order without notice
The petitioner challenged the confirmation order passed by the second respondent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) without being put on notice. The petitioner contended that the company in question, Madura Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., was acquired by him in 2015, and he was unaware of the attachment orders issued against the property. However, the Court noted that the company was represented before the Adjudicating Authority, and notice to the company sufficed legally. The Court declined to delve into factual disputes regarding notice in a writ petition, emphasizing that such matters should be resolved with the company's representative. The petitioner's contention of lack of notice was deemed insufficient for challenging the confirmation order.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction to pass confirmation order beyond 180 days
The petitioner argued that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass the confirmation order beyond the 180-day limit. The second respondent justified the delay by citing Supreme Court orders extending the limitation period. The Court examined a Delhi High Court judgment referenced by the petitioner, noting that the specific issue of jurisdiction beyond 180 days was not addressed in that case. Additionally, a stay order on the Delhi High Court judgment was highlighted. The Court also discussed a Calcutta High Court judgment relying on an Apex Court decision, emphasizing the inapplicability of the latter to property rights cases. Referring to a previous case, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal to address the jurisdictional issue. The Court's decision was supported by an Apex Court judgment clarifying the scope of previous rulings in matters involving quasi-judicial functions.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the confirmation order was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to seek remedy through the Appellate Tribunal under section 26 of the PMLA. The Court emphasized maintaining consistency with previous decisions and kept the jurisdictional issue open for the petitioner to pursue further.

---