9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ney Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter, 'PMLA'), challenging the order dated 19th December, 2024 passed by the Prevention of Money Laundering ("Appellate Tribunal"). 3. ING Vysya bank (now merged with the Petitioner bank) had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 24th March, 2015 to the Petitioner - Mr. Gurcharan Singh. The same was sanctioned under a Master Facility Agreement dated 28th April, 2015. As a collateral for the said loan, security was given of property i.e., Plot bearing No. 1111, Basement and Ground Floor, DLF Phase-4, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter, 'property'). 4. A provisional attachment order was passed on 18th December, 2015 and on 01st June, 2016 the same was confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvertent oversight of the concerned official who was looking after the concerned loan accounts and as a result the Appellant Bank remained unaware of the Impugned Order of the Ld. AA. In the revised affidavit of Shri Sarwan Singh, Authorised representative of the Appellant Bank filed on 13.06.2023, it has been stated that due to the amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the Appellant Bank underwent restructuring and management change. As a consequence of the same, there was an unavoidable and unintentional delay in filling the appeal on time. 15. On examination of the judgements cited by the Appellant Bank for the delay in filing the Appeal, it is to be noted that in the matter of Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Therefore, we dismiss the Application for Condonation of Delay and, consequently, the Appeal is also dismissed." 9. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 26 of the PMLA, the initial limitation period for filing of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is 45 days. He further contends that there is no outer limit prescribed under the PMLA Act for filing an appeal, and if sufficient cause is shown, the delay is liable to be condoned, unless the same is not justified. 10. Mr. Ravi Prakash, ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1, on the other hand submits that the delay in this case is quite long and the bank was well aware of the confirmation of the provisional attachment. 11. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be condonable. 16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CRL. M.A. 1413/2017 titled 'Directorate of Enforcement v. O P Nahar', while adjudicating an appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal wherein the appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA was rejected due to delay of 204 days in its filing. The Court condoned the delay and inter alia held that the Appellant therein sufficiently explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "9. In any event, question as to whether the delay has been explained or not is dependent on the peculiar facts of each case. Supreme Court in the above referred case has also not laid down as a proposition of law that dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
