TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....172 Jorbagh, New Delhi- 110003 50%, share of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram Rs. 16.05 crore as per income tax return of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, Sale deed through Sh. S. Bhaskararaman, General Attorney of Sh. Karti P. Chidambaram and Smt. Nalini Chidambaram registered vide No.7796 in Book No. I, Volume No. 13,445 on page 165 to 184 dated 22.8.2014 with Sub Registrar (V), Delhi, Shri Karti P. Chidambaram and Smt. Nalini Chidambaram. (B) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002390 amount of Rs. 93,51,961. (C) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002391 amount of Rs. 93,51,961. (D) Indian Overseas Bank Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002392 amount of Rs. 93,51,961. (E) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002393 amount of Rs. 93,51,961. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the aforementioned Order dated 10.01.2022, however, does not extend the period beyond 365 days in filing the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA, as stipulated under Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in a number of cases. Ld. Counsel pointed out that in FPA- PMLA-446/BNG/2013 in the matter of S. V. Srinivas vs. Enforcement Directorate, the Tribunal made the following observations in the Order dated 11.05.2018: "58. Thus, I am of view that prior to confirmation of the provisional attachment under section 8(3) of PMLA, a proceeding for the offence under PMLA in terms of section 45 has to be initiated, failing which, no confirmation can be made and the confirmation may become non est in the eye of law. The expression continue during proceedings to any offences indicates that the prosecution c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....int from the date of impugned order has expired in the month of December, 2018 which is before the amendment of extending the period for filing the prosecution complaint to 365 days. A legal right has accrued to the appellant in view of the section 8(3)(a) of PMLA-2002 when the prosecution complaint was not filed within 90 days. xxxxx 12. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that the attachment order of Adjudicating Authority shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding of 90 days or pendency of proceedings relating to any offence under this act before a court. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this act before a court within 90 days from the date (of the) impugned order." Ld. Counsel for the Appellant also cited the decision dated 20.12.2022 of this Tribunal in Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-1978/DLI/2017 in the matter of Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. ED: "20. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid provision of law was subsequently amended vide Act 7 of 2019 w.e.f.20.03.2019 to extend the limitation period for continuation of the attachment or retention or freezing of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Judgment dated 19.06.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Kasi vs. State [(2021) 12 SCC 1]. "8. The only issue which needs to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the appellant due to non-submission of charge-sheet within the prescribed period by the prosecution was entitled for grant of bail as per Section 167(2) CrPC. Before we notice the order of this Court dated 23-3-2020 passed in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10] which has been applied by the High Court on the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC, we need to notice the object and purpose of enactment of Section 167 CrPC. xxxxx 17. After noticing the purpose and object of Section 167, we now come to the judgment of this Court dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10] which has been relied on and referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment [S. Kasi v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1244] for holding that the time period in Section 167(2) is eclipsed by the judgment of this Court dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10] 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) CrPC. The investigating officer could have submitted/filed the charge-sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the Lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the investigating officer was not precluded from filing/ submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge). xxxxx 29. We, thus, are of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is decided against the Appellant, protection may be granted against taking over the possession of the attached properties by the Respondent Directorate. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate contended that due to the special and peculiar circumstances arising from the Covid-19, a complete lockdown was ordered in the country making physical movement of any person, including that of the Investigating Officers extremely difficult as the disease was contagious with threat to life. Ld. Counsel argued that the High Court of Delhi had suspended the functioning of the High Court, as well as of the Subordinate Courts. In this regard, he cited that the Office Order No. 1347/DHC/2020 dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Registrar General of Delhi High Court, whereby the functioning of the Courts continued to remain suspended till 14.06.2020. Ld. Counsel stated that the Office Order No. 159/RG/DHC/2020 dated 25.03.2020 issued by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court had taken note of nationwide lockdown and had suspended the functioning of the Subordinate Courts. The suspension of work of the Subordinate Courts continued till 30.06.2020 vide Office Order dated 13.06.2020. Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed Under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers Under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities. xxxxx 19.6. We are not elaborating on other directions issued by this Court but, when read as a whole, it is but clear that the anxiety of this Court had been to obviate the hardships likely to be suffered by the litigants during the onslaughts of this pandemic. Hence, the legal effect and coverage of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 cannot be unnecessarily narrowed and rather, having regard to their purpose and object, full effect i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period during COVID-19, the charge-sheet was filed within 365 days as stipulated in Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002." Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and various Orders/ Judgments referred by both the sides. The Impugned Order was passed on 29.03.2019 and the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA was filed on 01.06.2020. The moot question is whether the Prosecution Complaint which was filed after 365 days of the Impugned Order can hold good, in view of the Order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby, it was directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. The stipulation of filing the Prosecution Complaint within 365 days of the confirmation of the attachment order arises from the provisions of Section 8(3) of PMLA, which is as follows: "(3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money- laundering, he shall, by an orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Incharge)." He argued that similarly the Investigating Officer of the Respondent Directorate could have filed the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA within the prescribed 365 days, particularly so, when in fact he did file the said Prosecution Complaint under PMLA on 01.06.2020, even though the Covid-19 was still prevalent. 12. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has cited a few other Judgments as mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Order. In the matter of S. V. Srinivas vs. ED a view was taken that Prosecution Complaint must be pending before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of passing of the Confirmation Order. However, no final view was taken in the Judgment in view of the pending writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. None of the other Judgments has evaluated the impact of the Order dated 10.01.2022 (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the period of 365 days for filing the Prosecution Complaint after the passing of the Confirmation Order of the attachment of the property. 13. We observe that the Judgment in the matter of S. Kasi (supra) was passed in the context of grant of default bail, which has direct bearing on personal liberty. The present matter ....