TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) Nos.318/2014 & 345/2014 respectively preferred by the appellants. 2. We have heard the senior counsel for the appellant appearing in LPA No.99/2014. No separate arguments have been addressed in the other appeal. 3. The respondent Directorate of Enforcement vide order dated 30th August, 2013 under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and addressed inter alia to both the appellants, provisionally attached property No.11, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi held in the name of the appellant M/s. Ajanta Merchant Pvt. Ltd. A complaint dated 24th September, 2013 under Section 5(5) of the said Act was also filed against the appellants before the Adjudicating Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts having such right/opportunity to cross-examine. 6. The said writ petitions came up before the learned Single Judge on 17th January, 2014 i.e. on the same date when the complaints were listed before the Adjudicating Authority for final disposal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions with the following observations: "This Court is of the view that at this juncture when the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA is seized of the matter, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this grievance in the event it is aggrieved by the final order to be passed by Adjudicating Authority under PMLA. With the afores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the accused/noticee as the appellants are; (v) that it will be unfair and inequitable and contrary to the principles of natural justice for oral testimonies of persons whom the appellants have had no opportunity to cross-examine being relied against the appellants; (vi) that all that the appellants are asking is for the Adjudicating Authority to pass a speaking order on the applications filed by the appellants. 9. We have however invited the attention of the senior counsel for the appellant to Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 661 laying down that there is no justification for a party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by questioning the decision on preliminary issues and to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Adjudicating Authority, to take up the said aspect in appeal under Section 26 of the Act against the said orders and which right of the appellants has been protected in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge also. 12. The senior counsel for the appellant, though not controverting the aforesaid legal position, contends that if the appellants have a right in law to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimonies are intended to be used against the appellants, why should this Court not interfere at this stage itself instead of allowing the Adjudicating Authority to proceed on a futile exercise and which will only result in multiplicity of proceedings. 13. We are unable to agree. The Adjudicating Authority is currently seized of....