2022 (2) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one Writ Petition and two appeals shall stand disposed of. 2. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking quashing of an order dated 13/09/2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA Act'), whereby provisional attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 5 of the PMLA Act, has been confirmed. 3. The appeals have been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, challenging orders dated 20/09/2019, passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act, whereby appeals of the respondents stood allowed and it was held that the orders confirming the attachment of properties of the respondents lapsed due....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 90 days specified under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act. 6. The respondents in the aforesaid two appeals approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act to challenge the order of attachment under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act. By orders dated 20/09/2019, the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The Directorate of Enforcement has filed these two appeals challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 7. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the grounds raised in the Writ Petition challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 13/09/2018, whereby the attachment of property of the petitioner was confirmed, were based on the assertion that the offences in question were not scheduled offences under the PMLA ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der confirming the attachment of the property under Section 8 (3) of PMLA Act had lapsed in the face of the admitted facts. 11. Mr. Vaze, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Directorate of Enforcement in the appeals and the respondents in the Writ Petition, submitted that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 13/09/2018, could not be said to have lapsed under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act, for the reason that one of the aforesaid individuals i.e. Mr. Vinod Phadke had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the proceedings on the ground that the alleged offences in question had been committed prior to enactment of the PMLA Act. In the said Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No.8356 of 2018, on 10/08/2018, the D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d under Section 44 of the PMLA Act was instituted by the concerned Authority within the period of 90 days and eventually it came to be filed on 03/05/2019. Merely because the Delhi High Court had passed the above quoted interim order in Writ Petition filed by Mr. Vinod Phadke, the respondent in Appeal bearing No. 2509 of 2019, it would not ipso facto mean that the period specified under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act stood extended. Nothing prevented the concerned Authority from filing the complaint and investigating into the matter. The purport of the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court was properly appreciated and understood by the Appellate Tribunal while holding that the orders confirming the attachment of properties stood lapse....