Indra Pal Pandey and 2 Others vs Joint Director Directorate Enforcement Lko.

Court No. - 5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 220 of 2025

Appellant :- Indra Pal Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- Joint Director Directorate Enforcement Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldeep Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

Instant first appeal from order under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2002') has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the appellate tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi whereby the appeal filed by the appellants has been rejected.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that initially an order of provisional attachment was passed under Section 5 of the Act, 2002 on 30.10.2014, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the appeal.

¶8

Subsequent thereto, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 03.03.2015 under Section 8(3) of the Act, 2002, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the appeal, whereby the order passed under Section 5 of the Act, 2002 was confirmed.

¶9

Being aggrieved, an appeal under Section 26 of the Act, 2002, was filed which has been rejected by the order impugned and hence the appeal.

¶10

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that upon an order being passed under Section 5 of the Act, 2002, the Adjudicating Authority is required to confirm the said order.

¶11

Placing reliance on the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, 2002, the argument is that where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money laundering he has to confirm the said order which order shall continue during pendency of the proceedings relating to an offence under the Act, 2002.

¶12

The argument is that a complaint under Section 44 of the Act, 2002 was filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 06.04.2016 and consequently keeping in view the provisions of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, 2002, there were no proceedings pending for the order passed under Section 5 of the Act, 2002 to have been confirmed and as such the confirmation order dated 03.03.2015 gets patently vitiated in the eyes of law which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent authority while deciding the appeal vide order impugned dated 21.02.2025.

¶13

With regard to 'pendency' of the proceedings, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. J.P. Singh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 more particularly paragraph 10 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for attraction of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, 2002, it would be enough if a complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section C of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is pending meaning thereby that a pendency of a complaint has been held to be a sine-qua-non for the purpose of Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, 2002.

¶14

On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that earlier up to 18.04.2018 there was no time limit for the purpose of filing of a complaint under Section 44

¶15

of the Act, 2002 but subsequently for the period from 19.04.2018 to 19.03.2019 the time period was specified as 90 days from the date of Adjudicating Authority's order and thereafter w.e.f. 20.03.2019, 365 days have been prescribed from the date of Adjudicating Authority's order, meaning thereby that up to 18.04.2018, to which the instant matter pertains to, there was no time limit and consequently even if a complaint under Section 44 of the Act, 2002 has been filed on 06.04.2016 it would not vitiate the Adjudicating Authority's order as passed under Section 8 of the Act, 2002.

¶16

However, learned counsel for the respondent prays for some time to address the Court on the aforesaid issued.

¶17

As such, on the request of learned counsel for the respondent, list this case in the first week of July, 2025 as fresh. Order Date :- 29.5.2025

¶18

A. Katiyar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indra Pal Pandey and 2 Others v. Joint Director Directorate Enforcement Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Pal Pandey and 2 Others v. Joint Director Directorate Enforcement Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited Thru. Manager Legal Regional Office Lko. vs Sabir Ali and 5 Others

Indrajeet Kumar vs Sher Singh Pal and 4 Others

Asif Sajjad @ Asad Sajjad and 5 Others vs Mohd. Moved and 3 Others

Rajni Jain vs Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal Deptt. vs Dheeraj Sharma and Another

Sardar Singh and Ors. vs Samar Bahadur Singh