Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 134 - HC - Money LaunderingRejection of an application filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench in terms of Section 6(7) of the PMLA - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The judgment in J Sekar [[2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] clearly covers the issue. The Adjudicating Authority is located in Delhi and in terms of the ratio in J Sekar, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The power of the Appellate Tribunal as held in Sanjay Jain [[2023 (1) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] and U. S. Awasthi [[2023 (1) TMI 595 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] is wide. The Tribunal adjudicates appeals arising out of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on a daily basis. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks the constitution of a Bench under Section 6(7), consisting of two members at the Adjudicating Authority level for the purpose of deciding the confirmation of the impugned Provisional Attachment order. A perusal of the provision of Section 6(7) of the PMLA, would show that it is only at the time of hearing in any matter, if the Chairperson or a member feels that the matter or case is such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench of two members, then the Chairperson may assign a two-member Bench for hearing of the said order - In the present case, there has been no opinion expressed by the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the matter is so complex so as to require a two-member Bench. The Petitioner in this case has moved an application seeking constitution of two-member Bench, the maintainability of which itself could be suspect inasmuch as there has been no opinion expressed by any member of the A that such a Bench is required. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner and the matter is now stated to be for final hearing before the Adjudicating Authority. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that an application under Section 6 and 7 would not even be maintainable - In any event, even if the said order of the Adjudicating Authority is to be challenged, an appeal under Section 26 would be the appropriate remedy and not a writ petition. There are no grounds that have been raised in this case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Petition disposed off.
|