2019 (5) TMI 1465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the respondents herein had challenged an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA' in short). Another important factor to be noticed is that one of the parties to the proceedings being the husband/father of the respondent (petitioner in writ petition) filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal, which is still pending. 2. The petitioners in the writ petition had filed an application seeking a direction to the appellants herein to release the jewellery, which was seized during the search operation of 22.09.2014 conducted on the respondents here....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant succeed, they would be well within their rights to liquidate the amount. It is also contended by Mr. Kapur that since no notice was issued to the respondents herein under Section 17(4) or Section 20 of the Act and also that they were not parties to the adjudicating proceedings, the jewellery could in any case not be retained by the appellants for a period of more than 180 days, as per Section 20(3), which is reproduced below: "20. Retention of property.- (1) xxx        xxx        xxx (2) xxx        xxx        xxx (3) On the expiry of the period specified in sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quired to pass an order after considering the reply, if any, submitted by such a person. 13. In the present case, it is not disputed that no notice in respect of the subject jewellery (seized jewellery belonging to the petitioners) has been issued to them. 14. However, at this stage, it is not necessary for this Court to dwell further into the said issue as the prayers made by the petitioner are of a limited import. The petitioners merely seek conditional return of the jewelleries seized by the respondents on them furnishing security for full value of the same. Considering above, this Court finds no reason to reject this present application, while ensuring that the interest of the respondents are duly protected. 1....