2022 (8) TMI 1574 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - order passed beyond the limitation of 180 days under Section 8(3) of PMLA Act - continuance of attachment during proceedings before the Special Court - HELD THAT - While the adjudicating authority admitted that the impugned order was passed beyond limitation it has taken shelter of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in suo motu writ proceedings extending limitation in view of COVID-19 pandemic. A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gobindo Das v. Union of India 2021 (10) TMI 244 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Kasi v. State 2020 (6) TMI 727 - SUPREME COURT wherein scope and ambit of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in suo motu writ petition (civil) No. 3 of 2020 was considered and explained. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court Calcutta High Court has held that above order of the Supreme Court extending the limitation was made to obviate the difficulties faced by litigants and lawyers in filing proceedings under various statutes; such extension of limitation cannot be availed of by the adjudicating authority since it can neither be called a litigant nor an advocate. This view has been followed by a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Vikas WSP Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate 2020 (11) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT holding that the order extending limitation was never meant to curtail any provisions of other statutes protecting personal liberty or property rights. A prima facie view can be taken that when the adjudicating authority had passed the order dated 25.05.2022 the same was beyond limitation and was thus rendered functus officio - List on 27.10.2022.

Summary

The Telangana High Court, before Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, addressed a writ petition challenging the order dated 25.05.2022 by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The impugned order confirmed attachment of petitioners' property under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act and directed continuance of attachment during proceedings before the Special Court. However, the order was passed beyond the 180-day limitation prescribed under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act.The adjudicating authority justified the delay by relying on Supreme Court suo motu orders extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court examined precedents including Gobindo Das v. Union of India and M/s. Vikas WSP Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate, where it was held that such Supreme Court extensions were intended to aid litigants and lawyers and could not be invoked by adjudicating authorities, which are neither litigants nor advocates.The Court took a prima facie view that the order dated 25.05.2022 was beyond limitation and thus "rendered functus officio." Consequently, the Court issued notice, granted stay of the impugned order, and directed respondents to file counter-affidavits. The matter was listed for further hearing on 27.10.2022.