TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. 2/adjudicating authority has not passed any formal order on or before 9th June, 2021 under Section 8(3) of the aforesaid Act for confirmation or further extension of the aforesaid impugned Provisional Attachment Order dated 11th December, 2020. Petitioner contends that after the expiry of 180 days from the date of the aforesaid attachment order, Respondent No. 3 has become functus officio and further there is no provision under the aforesaid Act for automatic or deemed extension of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 (1) of the aforesaid Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent no. 3 in not allowing him to operate his bank account in question even after expiry of the validity of the aforesaid order of provisional attachment. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Enforcement Authorities opposing the Writ Petition and defending the action of the Respondent No. 3 authority in not allowing the Writ Petitioner to operate the bank accounts in question contends that even without passing any formal order of confirmation or further extension under Section 8 (3) of the Act after the expiry of 180 days of validity of the aforesaid imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra)? Some provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which are relevant for this case are quoted hereunder: "Attachment of property involved in money laundering. 5 (1). Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that-- (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed.................." (2) .............................. (3) .............................. (4) .............................. "5 (3). Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court." "17. The limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. The learned Single Judge committed serious error in reading such restriction in the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020." "29. The view taken by learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Settu versus The State (supra) that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020 does not extend the period for filing charge sheet under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been followed by Kerala High Court as well as Rajasthan High Court. Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 20.05.2020 in Bail Application No. 2856 of 2020 - Mohammed Ali Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. after noticing the contention raised on the basis of order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto W.P(C)No.3 of 2020 rejected the said contention and followed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Settu versus The State (supra). Kerala High Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment observes: - "13. I respectfully concur with the exposition of law laid down by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untry in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities." 30. Clearly, the above order extended the period of limitation. In the present case, Section 5(1) and 5(3) do not provide the period of WP(C) No.3551/2020 Page 20 limitation, but the period of validity of the Provisional Attachment Order. The same would not stand extende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeds of crime which the concerned Director has reasons to believe are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which may frustrate any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter III of the PMLA. Section 5(3) further provides that every order of attachment made under Section 5(1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of 180 days or on the date of an order made under Section 8(3) or whichever is earlier. Section 8(3) deals with a situation where the Adjudicating Authority makes an order in writing confirming the attachment of the property made under Section 5(1) or for retention of the property etc. Admittedly, no such order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority against the petitioner under Section 8(3). It should be mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority has been served with copies of the petition. 6. If the concerned Act provides certain windows to a party in relation to a provisional order of attachment expressed in the clear language of Section 5(1)(b), this Court cannot come in the way of the petitioner taking advantage of the said exit route. Needless to say, allowing withdrawal of this petition will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not needed to approach physically any judicial or quasi-judicial authority during Covid period to initiate any proceeding or filing any application/appeal/suit physically as a litigant or as an advocate for the aforesaid purpose to which Mr. Roy could not legally substantiate his defence and satisfy this Court on the impugned action of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. In support of his contention Mr. Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has relied on an interim order of this Court dated 2nd July, 2021 in WPA No. 10728 of 2021 (Rajendra Kumar Murarka -vs- Mohsina Tabassum & Ors.) by contending that validity of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding may be deemed to have been extended even if validity of the same under Section 5 (3) of the aforesaid Act has expired after 180 days and he has also relied on an interim order of this Court dated 23rd April, 2021 passed in an application being CAN No. 1 of 2021 in WPA No. 8232 of 2020 (Fairdeal Supplies Limited & Anr -vs- Union of India & Ors.). He has relied on one unreported order dated 2nd Decemeber, 2020 of Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement & Anr -vs- M/s Vikas WSP Ltd. & Ors. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o with regard to ownership, possession and encumbrance upon the properties in question and parties to file counter affidavit and order dated 8th January, 2021 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the said case is an interim order staying the operation of the order of the Single Bench dated 8th November, 2021 but there is no final adjudication of issue in question either by reversing or setting aside the order of the Single Bench and in the said order there is no discussion or reference of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra) or judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kasi (supra). Considering the submission of the parties and judgments relied upon by them in course of hearing and particularly taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kasi -vs- State reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 529 Para 16 (i) & (ii) wherein scope and ambit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra) has been considered and elaborately discussed with regard to the limitation prescribed for filing petitions / ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed opinion the Adjudicating authority/Respondent No. 2 cannot be called a litigant or advocate or a quasi-judicial authority and cannot take the benefit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court passed in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (supra) by taking the stand that on the expiry of validity of the said provisional attachment order after 180 days under Section 5 (3) of the aforesaid Act, the same would be deemed to have been extended automatically by virtue of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when he was not required to pass any formal order of extension of the same under Section 8 (3) of the aforesaid Act. I am of the considered opinion that such stand of the Respondent No. 2 is legally not sustainable since the impugned order of provisional attachment of bank accounts and postal accounts in question of the petitioner, dated 11th December, 2019, which has expired its validity on 9th June, 2021, has no force after expiry of 180 days from the date of passing of such order in view of not passing any formal order under Section 8 (3) of the said Act extending the validity of the same by the Respondent No. 2 and the action of Respondent No. 3 in not allow....