Delhi High Court Upholds Appellate Authority Decision on PMLA Transfer Application

The Delhi High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision rejecting the transfer application to a two-member bench under the PMLA. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and clarified that the provision did not allow parties to request a two-member bench, citing potential delays. It was concluded that the appropriate remedy for challenging the Adjudicating Authority's decision was through an appeal under Section 26, rather than a writ petition under Article 226. The Court highlighted the need for multiple benches in the Adjudicating Authority due to the high volume of pending cases under the PMLA.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of Appellate Authority under PMLA for rejecting transfer application to a bench, maintainability of writ petition before Delhi High Court, violation of principles of natural justice in rejecting application without oral hearing, jurisdiction of High Court, availability of alternate remedy before Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, interpretation of Section 6(7) of PMLA regarding constitution of bench, delay tactics in seeking two-member bench, appropriate remedy for challenging Adjudicating Authority's order, need for multiple benches in Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
1. The petition contested the Appellate Authority's order dated 25th January, 2023, which denied the transfer of proceedings to a bench under Section 6(7) of the PMLA. The provisional attachment order against the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement was challenged through this petition, emphasizing the need for a two-member bench for the case.

2. The jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was established based on the location of the Appellate Authority in Delhi, supported by precedents like J Sekar, ensuring the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court. The Court's jurisdiction was deemed appropriate for deciding the legal questions raised in the petition.

3. The power and efficacy of the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA were highlighted, citing cases like Sanjay Jain and U. S. Awasthi, emphasizing the Tribunal's daily adjudication of appeals from the Adjudicating Authority. The availability of an alternate remedy before the Tribunal was underscored.

4. The interpretation of Section 6(7) of the PMLA was crucial in determining the constitution of a bench, clarifying that the provision did not allow parties to request a two-member bench. The Court emphasized that such applications could lead to unnecessary delays and were not in line with the Act's time-sensitive nature.

5. It was concluded that the application for a two-member bench was not maintainable, especially after its rejection by the Adjudicating Authority. The appropriate remedy for challenging the Authority's decision was deemed to be an appeal under Section 26, rather than a writ petition under Article 226.

6. Lastly, the Court highlighted the necessity for multiple benches in the Adjudicating Authority due to the high volume of pending cases under the PMLA. It urged the Central Government to expedite the appointment of Chairperson and other members to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Authority. The petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing that the Court's opinion did not reflect on the case's merits.

---