Unconditional concession and reasoned order requirements under PMLA: reservation of liberty did not waive the appeal challenge.

A reservation of liberty to seek relief before another forum did not amount to an unconditional concession abandoning the challenge to retention of the cash amount. The Delhi HC noted that the statement before the Tribunal preserved the appellants' challenge and did not dispense with merits adjudication. Under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the appellate authority was required to pass a reasoned, speaking order, consistent with natural justice. As the appeals had not been validly abandoned, the Tribunal could not dispose of them without such an order. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded before the Tribunal amounted to an unconditional concession by the appellants against the challenge to retention of the cash amount. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was required to decide the appeals by a reasoned order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded before the Tribunal amounted to an unconditional concession by the appellants against the challenge to retention of the cash amount.

Analysis: The statement recorded before the Tribunal was only a reservation of liberty to approach the Special Court if the appeals were not accepted. It was not an unconditional abandonment of the challenge to retention of the cash amount, nor did it dispense with adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The statement was not an unconditional concession.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was required to decide the appeals by a reasoned order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the appellate authority was bound to pass a reasoned order. Giving reasons is also an element of natural justice. Since the appeals were not validly abandoned, the Tribunal could not dispose of them without a speaking order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was required to decide the appeals on merits by a reasoned order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication without being influenced by the earlier order. The parties' contentions were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A reservation of liberty to pursue relief before another forum does not amount to an unconditional concession, and an appellate authority acting under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must pass a reasoned order when deciding the appeal.

---