TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi [[ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ode. CM APPL.8330/2023 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 2191/2023 CM APPL.8329/2023 3. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 25th January, 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority (hereinafter AA ) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter PMLA ). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has rejected an application filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench in terms of Section 6(7) of the PMLA. 4. A provisional attachment order dated 21st September, 2022 was passed against the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter ED ) through which various properties and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India Ors., dated 11th January, 2018 , a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the location of the Appellate Authority would be relevant for entertaining the writ petition before this High Court. 7. Finally, reliance is placed by ld. counsel on the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 5393/2010 titled M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority Ors. , to argue that only when there is a question of law involved, the matter ought to be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy. It is urged that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 39. The Court does not agree with the Union of India on this aspect because of the judgment of five Judges of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries v. Union of India, 2011 (124) DRJ 633 . In that decision, the five-judge Bench of this Court affirmed the Full Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Union of India MANU/DE/0868/2009 : AIR 2010 Del 43 (FB) after noting that the Full Bench had held that: ...as the appellate authority is situate in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to apply the principle o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court deciding those questions of law. 11. Insofar as the issue of alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA is concerned, the power of the Appellate Tribunal as held in Sanjay Jain (supra) and U. S. Awasthi (supra) is wide. The Tribunal adjudicates appeals arising out of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on a daily basis. 12. 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. Section 6(7) of the PMLA reads as under: - (7) If at any stage of the hearing of any case or matter it appears to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an application being moved by a party to seek constitution of two-member Bench. If such applications are permitted, it may lead to a situation that in every case, the concerned parties/entity would move an application for constitution of such a Bench merely to delay proceedings. Time is of the essence under the provisions of the PMLA Act and decisions in respect of provisional attachments have to be taken within the prescribed time which is usually 180 days. Under such circumstances, the moving of an application as has been done in the present case would be nothing but a delaying tactic, purely with an intent to delay the matter. 16. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner and the matter is now s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
