TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in the OA and Deputy Director, ED who authorized Sh. Navin Yadav, Assistant Directors, ED to conduct search at the premises of Respondent No. 4, herein, and two panchas, namely, Sh. Dharendra Singh and Sh. Sunil Kumar for effective and proper adjudication of the present matter; (ii) MA No. 59: Seeking supply of copy of 'reasons to believe' as recorded under Section 17(1); (iii) MA No. 60: Seeking inspection of records and further necessary time to file reply; (iv) MA No. 61: Seeking stay of proceedings in the present matter, till such time the coram of the Adjudicating Authority as stipulated in section 6(7) of PMLA, 2002 is functional; (v) MA No. 62: Seeking necessary orders and directions from the Authority to constitute a fresh Bench for hearing the captioned Original Application by an independent body and before an impartial forum. 2. Of the above-mentioned five Miscellaneous Applications, MA No. 58, seeking cross-examination of the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was disposed of as withdrawn by the Ld. AA at the request of the appellant. As such, the issue raised in the said MA is not of concern to us i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the permissions of the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) by way of transfer of shares of M/s Kadam Developers Pvt. Ltd. The sub-lease holder of the said land, M/s Kadam Developers Pvt. Ltd. allegedly gave mortgage permission in favor of IBHFL, and also to M/s Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. (as security trustee). 4. Search operations under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 were carried out at various premises related to IBHFL, M3M and their officials on 28.02.2024 and 29.02.2024 in pursuance of the investigations in the above matter. During the searches, various digital records and documents were seized under Section 17(1) of the Act, which inter alia included the following items of the present appellant: 1. 2 Locker Keys (Locker No. 74 and 46 in PNB) 2. One Laptop HP Spectre X360 Convertible, SI No. 5CDO5DIZD 3. One iPhone 13 (128GB), SI. No. G4Q0NH9XC0, IMEI: 354789239665425 & 54789239612005 4. A Samsung Galaxy Tab S8 5G, SI. No. R52T30ALCCB 5. Consequent to the seizures, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, an O.A was filed before the Ld. AA seeking retention of the seized items. It was during the course of the procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is adjudicating upon the case filed by ED which itself is working under supervision of the Department of Revenue. 5. Since, the member Finance has a background of working for Department of Revenue, there is a reasonable apprehension that the Adjudicating Authority would not be able to adjudge the case of the Applicant in an impartial manner due to lack of independence of the Authority from its parent organization, and this is against the principles of natural justice. 5. Because The Selection Committee appointing a member is also headed by a chairperson which is from the Department of Revenue. ORDER The Miscellaneous Applicant purposefully misquoted the Prevention of Money Laundering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2007, Rule 3. The Rule 3 states as under: "3. Qualifications for appointment as Member an Adjudicating Authority shall have three Members-one from the field of Law and two from the fields of administration and finance or accountancy. (1) For the Member from the field of Law, a person shall be qualified for appointment if he- (a) is qualified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In support of the contention, it is argued that it is settled law that the administrative support to tribunals cannot be of parent organization as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 1. The failure on the part of Department to fill vacancies of other members (Law and Administration) even after repeated directions of various courts shows that there is reasonable apprehension of bias on part of the parent organization. It is submitted that the Appellant had relied upon several judgments in support of his arguments and contentions raised in the Applicant, which have not been considered by the Hon'ble Authority. The same include: i. Secretary to the Government v. Munuswamy Mudaliar & Ors, 1988 AIR 2232 (SC) ii. Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 519 iii. Union Of India v. R. Gandhi & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 1 iv. Madras Bar Associate v. Union of India & Anr., W.P (C) No. 804 of 2020 v. Gold Croft Properties v. Union of India and Anr. , 2023/DHC/001436 (Delhi High Court) vi. Alok Industries v. Assistant Director, Enf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that though this ground had been raised by the appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the same have not been dealt by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. It is prayed that the grounds raised by the Appellant in his reply to the Authority may be considered part and parcel of the present Appeal. 13. The provisions of Article 50 which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of India are also cited which requires the State to take effective steps in ensuring that there is a separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. It is submitted that if an Adjudicating Authority is constituted to exercise judicial powers it must possess independence from the influence of the executive. This is a necessary concomitant of the Rule of Law. 14. It is contended that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the various judgments relied upon by the Appellant, which are directly related to the facts of the present case. Ld. Adjudicating Authority ought to have decided the application in exercise of its powers to constitute a bench comprising of one or two members under Section 6(5)(b) of PMLA, 2002. The impugned order was passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judicial adjudication. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Notified Area Committee v. Additional Director, Consolidation and Ors. 2002 10 SCC 87 in cited in this regard wherein it was observed that reasons are necessary in judicial adjudication: "3. The writ petition has been disposed of by the High Court without stating any reason whatsoever. Time and again this Court has pointed out that reasons are the flesh and blood of judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable to be challenged in the superior court. That applies to the High Court also. The impugned order reads thus: "We have heard the learned counsel on merits. We find no merit in this petition. Dismissed." 7. It is not a reasoned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh in accordance with law." 18. The decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in its order dated 18.01.2021 in the case of Sanjay & 3 others v. State of U.P. in Application u/s 482 No. 18422 of 2020 is also cited wherein it was held that a Judge's work is like a God and he sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided for or sufficient to obviate and dispense with the obvious necessity to record reasons. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any licence to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying 'varying according to the chancellor's foot'. Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. The State does not in pursuing or conducting a criminal case or an appeal espouses any right of its own but really vindicate the cause of society at large, to prevent recurrence as well as punish offences and offenders respectively, in order to preserve orderliness in society and avert anarchy, by upholding rule of law. The provision for seeking leave to appeal is in order to ensure that no frivolous appeals are filed against orders of acquittal, as a matter of course, but that does not enable the High Court to mechanically refuse to grant leave by mere cryptic or readymade observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.05.2019 wherein in Para 9 it was held that the High Court should assign reasons as to why a Petition is allowed or rejected. The following other case laws are cited on behalf of the appellant: (i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amit Chopra v. State WP Crl. No. 1030 of 2009 - where the Trial Court had not discussed the facts of the case in the impugned Order, the matter was remanded back to the concerned court, with the direction that the matter be heard afresh. (ii) Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 2022 - it was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal with issues/grounds raised in the Writ Petition. (iii) Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, Crl. Appeal no. 1844 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 - merely recording "having perused the record" and "on the facts and circumstances of the case" does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. Factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are to be recorded in the order passed. (iv) Yogesh Waman Athavale Vikram Abasaheb Jadhav, Contempt Petition No. 127 of 2019 dated 11.02.2020 Orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Ors MANU/ML/0085/2019 wherein the matter was remanded back because to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority passed an order without assigning any reasons. It is contended that the impugned order being passed in a mechanical manner on a templated format deserves to be set aside as the same has been passed without application of mind. 22. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed by the appellant that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 23. We have considered carefully the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The fundamental contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been constituted against the principles of natural justice. In favor of the contention, the appellant has relied upon a series of case laws, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi (supra) wherein it was observed that Tribunals should not be administratively under the sponsoring departments which generates the disputes that they have to decide. In fact, they should not even get infrastructure and manpower support from the said ministry. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also be made in this regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Karvy India Realty Limited and Ors. [Writ Appeal No. 611 of 2023, decided on: 12.02.2024] wherein the Hon'ble High Court made the following observations: "16..........An adjudication is a function which is performed by several statutory authorities under different enactments, namely under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976; the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Thus, when legislature confers the function of adjudication on an authority under the statute, the same can be performed by such authority within the four corners of the power conferred on it. It is pertinent to note that under PMLA, the Adjudicating Authority neither has power to decide on the criminality of offence nor does it have power to impose punishment." *** "20. It is also pertinent to mention that against an order passed under Section 8 of PMLA, an appeal is provided under Section 25(1) of PMLA before the appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is desirable that all such tribunals should be, as far possible, under a single nodal ministry which will be in a position to oversee the working of the tribunals. The Apex Court was of the view that the Ministry of Law would be the most appropriate ministry for this purpose. 29. Having gone through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the observations being relied upon by the appellant occur under the heading, "Recommendations for Better Working of Tribunals". Further, even the observations from the judgement in the case of L. Chandrakumar cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in the aforementioned case of R. Gandhi are in the nature of recommendations. The observations, while highly significant and far-reaching, do not constitute a binding ratio decidendi and it is left to the government to take appropriate action on the recommendations. Notably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case upheld the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that creation of the NCLT and the NCLAT and vesting them with the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in regard to Company Law matters, was not unconstitutional. As such, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esident promulgated the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 on 4th April, 2021 under clause (1) of article 123 of the Constitution. 4. The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 which seeks to replace the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 (Ord. 2 of 2021), inter alia provides for- (i) uniform terms and conditions of service for Chairperson and Members of various tribunals, including the following, namely: (a) Search-cum-Selection Committee for tribunals other than State Administrative Tribunals to be headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by him; (b) Search-cum-Selection Committee for the State Administrative Tribunal to be headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned State; (c) recommendation of a panel of two names by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and such recommendation to be considered by the Government preferably within three months; (d) removal of Chairperson and Members on the recommendation of Search-cum-Selection Committee; (e) the Chairperson and Memb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntemplates the existence of a Chairperson and other members as per Section 6(2) of PMLA. It also contemplates the constitution of separate Benches. Though, as held in J. Sekar (supra) one member can constitute an Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of the Act, there is clearly a dire need for constitution of multiple Benches of the AA to function simultaneously. 19. Accordingly, the Central Government ought to take expeditious steps for appointing Chairperson and other members of the AA within a period of 8 weeks." 33. The above direction of the Hon'ble High Court that the Central Govt. "ought to take expeditious steps for appointing... " has been misread by the appellant to mean that the vacancies must be filled within 8 weeks, which is wholly misplaced. 34. Similarly, in the case of Alok Industries Ltd. (supra),the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was that "steps shall be taken for filling up the vacant posts ... on an expeditious basis and in any case, within a period of four months from today." Notably, the said case was decided by the same single-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which later decided Gold Croft Ltd., which has al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Department of Revenue for 2 years before appointment as Member Finance. Moreover, even on facts, the application was incorrect insofar as the present incumbent of the post had never served in the Department of Revenue prior to his appointment as a member as stated by the appellant. Furthermore, the Selection Panel also has the Secretary, Lawand Chairman CBDT as members. Accordingly, he held that the factual averments in the Miscellaneous Application were incorrect. As such, it can be seen that the Ld. AA has given its reasons while disposing of the Miscellaneous Application. The appellant's grievance appears to be that the Ld. Authority did not address the underlying issue in the Miscellaneous Application which was regarding potential conflict of interest involved in cases generated by the Department of Revenue being adjudicated upon by a body within the same Department. 37. With regard to the above, we firstly note that it was up to the appellant (applicant before the Ld. AA) to correctly highlight the issue being raised in the application rather than focusing on the language of the Rules of appointment of the Member, that too incorrectly. Furthermore, it is noteworthy th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 6(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA") is functional. 2. Further, the Respondent No. 4 seeks that the present application be decided first before the Hon'ble Authority proceeds to pass the final order u/s 8 as the present application raises a preliminary issue raising certain jurisdictional issues for this Hon'ble Authority to proceed further with the present case as the issues raised in the present application goes to the root of the present proceedings. Special circumstances have arisen for the constitution of bench in terms of Sec 6(7) PMLA. i.e., bench comprising judicial member and member from finance background. 3. That the order under Section 8 (1) PMLA and the show-cause notice issued by this Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been served upon the Applicant herein. In the said notice, it has been stated that the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter "ED") has filed an application under Section 17(4) of the PMLA against the Applicants/Respondents for the retention of digital devices; documents/records seized. 4. That in terms of Sec 6(2) PMLA, the Hon'ble Authority shall be a three....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy and the proceedings may be continued before the Adjudicating Authority from the stage at which the vacancy is filled. (11)......... (12)...... (13) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairperson by reason of his death, resignation or otherwise, the seniormost Member shall act as the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority until the date on which a new Chairperson, appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill such vacancy, enters upon his office. (14)........... (15)......... 6. It is submitted that when legislation uses a word in the Act then each word should be given effect to. Legislation has used the word "one member each shall be a person ---" and not the word "member shall be a person ----", therefore, there must be one member from each of the following fields: a. law, b. administration, c. finance or accountancy. 7. Section 6(2) of the PMLA provides that "An Adjudicating Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and two other Members: Provided that one Member each shall be a person having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority is a full-fledged judicial enquiry and therefore the coram as provided under Section 6(2) of the PMLA has to be mandatorily followed. 14. It is submitted that the present matter involves important questions of law including but not limited to satisfaction of the following conditions, stipulated in Section 17 PMLA before seizure of any record or property under subsection (1) or freezing any record or property under sub-section (1-A) before seizure of seizure and/or freezing any record or property: (i) committed any act of moneylaundering, or (ii) is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, or (iii) is in possession of records relating to money-laundering, or (iv) is in possession of any property related to crime. ORDER The issue of Coram non-judice has been considered by various High Courts and the Judgements are as under: " In W.P.(MD) No.11454 of 2018 in the matter of G. Gopalakrishnan v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High court decided that "The contention regarding coram non-judice, that the Adjudicating Authority is manned only by a single Member also cannot be countenanced with reference to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resents a very different scheme from what is found in other statutes particularly the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Further it was held that no two tribunals are alike, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) comprises of both judicial members and administrative members. However, the same is not in the case of PMLA Act as neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate tribunal exercises the powers that would otherwise be available to the High Court and such power remains with the High Court in terms of Section 42 of the Act both on questions of law as well as on facts. It was further held that there can be single member benches of the adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal under the PMLA Act and such single member benches need not mandatorily have to be a judicial member and can be an administrative member as well. It appears that as against the decision in J. Sekar, no appeal had been preferred at the instance of the aggrieved persons but it appears that the Enforcement Directorate has preferred an appeal, however such appeal is on a different ground and not pertaining to the decision with regard to the jurisdiction of a single member bench of the adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority, the matters pending are to continue till such vacancy is filed. 43. It is argued that it is a settled legal position that statute has to be considered in the form it is intended and not otherwise. The scheme of the PMLA, 2002 is evident from the detailed procedure laid down in Section 6, and any act in derogation thereof shall be void ab initio. It is also contended that it is a settled position of law that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. 44. In support of the contentions, the appellant has sought to rely on several decided cases. The following case laws are cited in this context: (i) Judgement of three-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. (ii) Judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (MP-PMLA- 4147/ BNG/2017 and FPA-PMLA- 2120/BNG/2017) MANU/ML/0085/2019 (iii) Judgement of three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Opto Circult India Ltd v. Axis bank & Ors (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd are identical to those in FPA-PMLA-861/DLI/2024which have been duly considered by us while disposing of the said appeal. As such, for the sake of brevity, the same are not being repeated here. 47. With the above contentions, it is prayed by the appellant that the present appeal be allowed and the order of the Ld. AA be set aside. 48. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants carefully, we find ourselves in full agreement with the Ld. AA. The following judgments of various High Courts are clearly against the appellant: (i) The judgment of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High court in G. Gopalakrishnan v. Directorate of Enforcement [W.P. (MD) No.11454 of 2018] (ii) The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J Sekar v. Union of India and Ors [W.P.(C) 8100/2017 decided on 11.01.2018] (iii) The order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. Directorate of Enforcement [LPA 167/2023 & CM APPL.11254/2023] (iv) The judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in R.P. Infosystems Limited and Another v. The Adjudication Authority and Another [MAT NO. 1253 OF 2023 decided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nugatory and ineffective." [Emphasis supplied] 50. It may further be pointed out that this Appellate Tribunal in its judgment dated 30/11/2023 in the case of M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi [FPA-PMLA- 6683/DLI/2023] had held as follows: "19. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the issue raised by the appellant has already been settled by Delhi High Court in the case of Gold Craft Properties Pvt. Ltd. V/s Directorate of Enforcement 2023 DHC 6887 DB. 20. The Division Bench of the High Court found that even one Member of the Adjudicating Authority is competent to pass the order. 21. The Delhi High Court in the case of Aprajita Kumari and Another v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate and Another in WP (C) 3008/2016 decided the same issue. It was even in the case of K. Rethinam v. Union of India and Ors. in WP No. 8115/2017. It was held that Single Member can pass an order and it is not necessary that said member should be from the Judicial side. It can be an Administrative Member as well. 22. The same view was taken by Karnataka High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed. FPA-PMLA-863/DLI/2024 54. This appeal is against the order of the Ld. AA on the Miscellaneous Application of the Appellant seeking supply of 'reasons to believe' as recorded by the concerned officer of the Directorate under Section 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002. The relevant part of the order of the Ld. AA is reproduced below for ready reference: "B. In case of MA no. 59, on the Application for supply a copy of "Reasons to Believe" as recorded by concerned officers of the Directorate of Enforcement. 1. The Miscellaneous Applicant has submitted application containing the following main facts: 1. That SCN issued by this Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been served upon the Applicant. Along with the said SCN or even subsequently, the Applicant herein has not been served with alleged reasons to believe, as recorded by the ED u/s 17 (1) PMLA, 2002. 2. That the Applicant/Respondent, in response to the above said SCN, submits that properties seized by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter "ED") are not 'proceeds of crime', and have been seized without justification and in the abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame is not in compliance of law and would also be in a position to point out that mere mechanical recording of reasons is not enough and there must be material facts to support the alleged Reasons to Believe, and thus, the present OA as filed by the ED is liable to be returned, due to noncompliance and nonfulfilment of the twin conditions, as stipulated in Section 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002, in light of the analogy of the ratio of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). 8. The Miscellaneous Applicant therefore prayed for that the Adjudicating Authority may graciously be pleased to: a. Issue Notice to Directorate of Enforcement and fix matter for hearing oral arguments on the present application, in light of the principles of natural justice as per Section 6 (15) PMLA, 2002, before disposal of the present application, more so, in view of Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Courts in Petitions against the orders passed by this Hon'ble Authority and also the submissions made in the Application, thereby giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the present application; AND b. Decide the present Application as a preliminary issue; AND c. Pass the necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section, on the basis of information in his possession, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person- (i) has committed any act which constitutes money-laundering, or (ii) is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in moneylaundering, or (iii) is in possession of any records relating to money-laundering. [or] [(iv) is in possession of any property related to crime.] then, subject to the rules made in this behalf, he may authorise any officer subordinate to him to-- (a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept: (b) break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (a) where the keys thereof are not available; (c) seize any record or property found as a result of such search; (d) place marks of identification on such record or [property, if required or] make or cause to be made extrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rank of Deputy Director authorized by him for the purposes of this section, on the basis of information in his possession, has reason to believe has to record reason for such belief in writing. Further in accordance with provision of section 17(2)) the authorized officer under section 17(1) shall, immediately after search and seizure [or upon issuance of a freezing order), forward a copy of the reasons so recorded along with material in his possession, to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such reasons and material for such period, as may be prescribed. However, there is no express provision in the Act for supply of copy of reasons to believe to the Respondents. ORDER The landmark judgment of Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary states- "79...... Such reason(s) to believe is required to be recorded in writing and contemporaneously forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority along with the material in his possession in a sealed envelope to be preserved by the Adjudicating Authority for period as is prescribed under the Rules framed in that regard. Such are the inbuilt safeguar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of PMLA, 2002 it is clear that when ED Officer is satisfied that 'reasons to believe' exist that an offence of money laundering has been committed, he may authorize any officer sub-ordinate to provisionally attach any property. In the present case, it is contended, there is no material on record to show that the applicant/appellant herein has derived or obtained any alleged property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, nor that it had any record or property related to crime. In the absence of recording of reasons to believe, the entire proceedings are bad in the eyes of law. There is non-compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India qua the satisfaction of twin conditions under section 17 of the Act. It is contended that the Directorate has supplied reasons to believe as recorded under section 17 in other matters and thus, the same are required to be supplied in the present case as well. The decision of the passed by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in GVK Energy Ltd v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate in WP No. 10157/2021(Order dated 22.04.2021) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded that any of the property / records which was seized from the premises was actually related to Money Laundering. 59. It is further submitted that apart from just reproductions of the grounds raised by the Ld. Adjudicating authority, the 'court' (Adjudicating Authority) has failed to appreciate the various judgments relied upon by the Appellant, which are directly related to the facts of the present case. 60. The other contentions raised and arguments presented in support thereof are identical to those in the FPA-PMLA-861/DLI/2024 and FPA-PMLA-862/DLI/2024and are not repeated here in the interest of brevity. 61. In light of the above arguments and contentions, it is prayed by the appellant that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Ld. AA be set aside. 62. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the authorities cited in support of the same. We find that the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal are primarily based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J. Sekar. Though the operation of the said judgment of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Page 19 of 22 obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner are administrative in character and are not quasijudicial." In the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya V/s. union of India (2014) 4 SCC 392, the Apex Court addressed the same issue and relied the earlier judgment in the case of S. Narayanyappa & Ors. (supra). Para 16 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: - "16. We reject the submission of the appellant for the following reasons. Firstly, there is no express statutory requirement to communicate the reasons which led to the issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Act. Secondly, the reasons, though not initially supplied along with the notice dated 4-3-1977, were subsequently supplied thereby enabling the appellant to effectively meet the case of the respondents. Thirdly, we are of the opinion that the case on hand is squarely covered by the ratio of Narayanappa case. The appellant could have effectively convinced the respondents by producing the appropriate material that further steps in furtherance to the notice under Section 6 need not be taken. Apart from that, an order of forfeiture is an appealable order where the correctness of the decision under Section 7 to forfe....