TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7861 having balance Rs. 12,47,268/-; No. 50033632032 having balance Rs. 57,725/-; No. 50033632134 having balance Rs. 61,864/-; and No. 50109036385 having balance Rs. 39,60,500/-. The attached accounts also include 3 Accounts in United Bank of India, Siliguri in the name of the Appellant M/s Nandini Construction bearing following numbers and amounts, No. 237050492829 having balance Rs. 4,999/-; No. 023710286819 having balance Rs. 1,00,19,596/-; and No. 0237213021633 having balance Rs. 7,67,691/-. The aforementioned two Appeals have challenged the confirmation of the attachment of the aforementioned 7 Accounts. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants stated that he has preferred the challenge only on question of law. Ld. Counsel contended that since, the Impugned Order was passed by the Ld. AA comprising of only one Member, the Coram prescribed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of PMLA was not complete and the Order is therefore to be set aside on this ground itself. Secondly the Ld. AA failed to afford opportunity of any reply to the notice issued under Section 8(1) of the PMLA, in spite of request to the contrary by the Appellants in clear contravention of Section 8(2) of the PMLA. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13(2)/13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri Mriganka Mouli Sarkar Executive Engineer SJDA and Shri Ajit Kumar Banerjee Proprietor of M/s Eureka Traders Bureau, Kolkata. The allegation was that for the work relating to construction of three Electric Crematorium at Bagdogra and for the work of installation and commissioning of Electric Mechanical Mechanism at the Sewage Treatment Plants tender was awarded to M/s Eureka Traders Bureau, Kolkata. While the major part of the payment was released and disbursed to M/s Eureka Traders Bureau, Kolkata no material was actually procured and supplied by the Awardee Firm at the project sites and no work was completed. Consequently, ECIR No. KLZO/04/2013 was registered on 29.11.2013 by the ED. During the course of investigation, it was found that many irregularities had occurred in awarding of tenders and in performance required under tender. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the M/s Eureka Traders Bureau, Kolkata had transferred the payment received by it to its various accounts, sister companies and other associates. Ld. Counsel further alleged that Rs. 5 crores were received by the Appellants. The money was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em. Ld. AA has categorically recorded that provisions of Section 5 and 8 of PMLA have been complied with. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant emphasized that the Ld. AA therefore, passed a well-reasoned and speaking Order after having given thoughtful consideration to the material placed before him, as well as to the submissions made during the Adjudication Proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded to dismiss the two Appeals. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The case relates to allegations of corruptions against certain officials of SJDA, who made payments for non-existent work relating to supply of material and completion of projects assigned by SJDA to private parties. These parties/contractors without carrying out the responsibilities bestowed upon them, received payments and siphoned off the same through entities including the two Appellants herein. Part of such siphoned off money was utilized to grease the palms of certain officials of SJDA, who were in conspiracy with these alleged contractors. 8. The perusal of the record brings out overwhelming evidence to corroborate the allegations of money flows from SJDA to M/s Eureka Trade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the coram prescribed under Section 6(1) of PMLA, as the Order was passed by the Single Member of the Adjudicating Authority. Upon careful consideration of the statutory framework, it is noted that Section 6(2) of PMLA provides for the composition of the Adjudicating Authority to include a Chairperson and two other Members, out of whom one shall be from the field of law. Section 6(5)(b) of PMLA states that a Bench may be constituted by the Chairperson of the AA with one or two Members as the Chairperson of the AA may deem fit. Section 6(6) of PMLA permits the Chairperson to transfer a Member from one Bench to another Bench. Section 6(7) of PMLA states that if at any stage of hearing of any case or matter it appears to the Chairperson or Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be transferred to such Bench as the Chairperson may deem fit, he can do so. Section 6(10) of PMLA stipulates that even if vacancy occurs the proceedings may be continued before the AA from the stage at which the vacancy is filled. The legislative intent underlying Section 6 of PMLA is clear that the composition of the AA must include persons from diverse field and that the cases may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of Enforcement, Delhi [FPA-PMLA- 6683/DLI/2023] has 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 Vs. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate and Another in WP (C) 3008/2016 decided the same issue. It was even in the case of K. Rethinam Versus 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 Court in the case of Dyani Antony Paul V/s Union of India WP No. 38642/2016 date 11.12.2020. 23. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order to deny stay of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. The PAO was issued on 24.12.2014 and the Impugned Order was passed on 28.05.2015. 13. The Appellants have also argued that the Respondent Directorate has no power to file the ECIR as no such provision exists in the Act. Section 49 of PMLA states the following: "49. Appointment and powers of authorities and other officers- (1) The Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be authorities for the purposes of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Director or an Additional Director or a Joint Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed under that sub-section to appoint other authorities below the rank of an Assistant Director. (3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act." The following Notification vide G.S.R. 441(E) dated 01.07.2005 was published in the Gazette of India: "NOTIFICATION APPOINTING DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-secti....