Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-1256/BNG/2016 of Vinod S. Patil v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP20 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1256/BNG/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim that the confirmation order passed under section 26 of PMLA was invalid due to the delay exceeding 180 days. The Court held that since the matter had been remanded in an earlier appeal to be decided on merits with a six-month timeline, the subsequent order was liable to be heard on merits and the jurisdictional objection was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The objection regarding delay beyond 180 days was rejected; the appeal is to be heard on merits.

FPA-PMLA-1256/BNG/2016 of Vinod S. Patil v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 20.03.2017

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1254/BNG/2016
Smt. Bharati Alias Bhowramma	…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondents
FPA-PMLA-1257/BNG/2016
Shankara Gouda A. Patil	…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondents
FPA-PMLA-1255/BNG/2016
Mallasiddappa S. Patil	…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondents
FPA-PMLA-1256/BNG/2016
Vinod S. Patil	…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who	appe	ared

¶4

For the appellants	:	Mr. Chidananda URS, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	:	MEMBER
SHRI B.K. BANSAL	:	MEMBER

¶5

FPA-PMLA-1254,1255-1256 & 1257/BNG/2016

¶6

Page 1 of 5

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1254/BNG/2016, FPA-PMLA-1257/BNG/2016, FPA-PMLA1255/BNG/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1256/BNG/2016

¶9

These appeals have been filed under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 30.12.2015 in O.C. NO. 427/2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The pleadings in the above said appeal are complete. When the matter was taken on 9^th March, 2017, the learned counsel for the appellants has merely raised the issue that the entire proceedings have been vitiated as the impugned order has not been passed within 180 days from the date of passing the provisional attachment order dated 10^th March, 2015. He says that the impugned order was passed on 30^th December, 2015 is beyond the period of 180 days. It is also submitted by him that in appeal no. FPA-PMLA984/BNG/2015 filed by the appellants, this tribunal has allowed granting six months time to the Authority to decide the issue of confirmation after filing the reply and hearing of the facts. The order was bad and contrary to the provisions of Act, it is thus liable to be reviewed.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is immaterial, if order of remanding the matter in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 was passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellants whereby six months was granted to decide the matter on merits by order dated 11^th August, 2015. It is argued by him that there is a statutory provisions under section (5) of PMLA, therefore, under any circumstances time period of 180 days from date of provisional attachment order could not be extended with the consent of the parties and even if order is passed by this Tribunal.

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1254,1255-1256 & 1257/BNG/2016

¶12

Page 2 of 5

¶13

In support of his submission he has referred the following Judgment:

¶14

“AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2065 from Gauhati in Civil Appeal Nos. 140-143, 262-275, 678 and 1761-1762 of 1973 D/-1-5-1975, Civil Appeals No. 140-143 of 1973: Supdt. Of Taxes, Dhubri and others, Appellants Vs. M/s Onkarmal Nathmal Trust, Respondent; AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2141(1) Civil Appeal No. 6071 (NM) of 1990, D/-4-9-1991 Collector of Central Excise, Madras, Appellant Vs. M/s. M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu, Respondent; AIR 1980 Supreme Court 303 (From : Jammu and Kashmir) Civil Appeal no. 2005 of 1978, D/-12-11-1979 Sharif-ud-Din, Appellant Vs. Abdul Gani Lone, Respondent; AIR 2010 Supreme Court 806 Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002, D/-11-9-2009 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors.; In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) Criminal Appeal No. 890/2009 decided on 29.11.2012, Appellant-Mohanlal Arya V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh through S.P.E. Lokayuktha, Indore, Respondent; AIR 1976 Supreme Court 263 1975 Cri. LJ 1993 (From Gujarat) Criminal appeal no. 158 of 1972, D/-27-8-1975 Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel, Appellant V/s. The Agriculture Produce Market Committeee and Others, Respondent.”

¶15

On the other hand Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam submits that the order dated 11^th August, 2015 was passed in presence of the parties, the same was not challenged by the appellant in High Court. Even the appellants (including the appellant in the present case) have not been filed the review petition. The impugned order has been passed on merits after due compliance of the order dated 11^th August, 2015.

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1254,1255-1256 & 1257/BNG/2016

¶17

Page 3 of 5

¶18

As far as proposition of law is concerned there is no dispute as the same are to be applied strictly, however, the facts and circumstances of the present case are different.

¶19

It is undisputed fact that provisional attachment order was passed on 10^th March, 2015. The case in earlier appeal no. FPA-PMLA984/BNG/2015 filed by the same appellants was that the sufficient time was not granted to file the reply issuing the notice under section 8(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and to defendthe case, therefore, the impugned order in that appeal was not sustainable. The contention of the appellant in the earlier appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 was accepted and the impugned order was set aside by remanding the case after giving the reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The operative part of para 12 in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 reads as under:

¶20

“12. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed by way of remand without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. We direct the Adjudicating Authority to pass fresh adjudication order within six months from the date of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to presen t their case /defense. The appellants shall file their pleadings and documents before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 30 days of the receipt of this order or on a date fixed by the Adjudicating Authority. During the pendency of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority the provisional attachment order shall continue, but all the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of properties attached vide Provisional Attachment Order no. 0 2 /2 0 1 5 dated 10.03.2015 issued under section 5(1) of PMLA. The appellants shall not transfer, commit waste, alienate or create any third party rights in the attached properties or transfer possession of the attached properties to a third party. Parties to bear their own cost.”

¶21

It is not denied by the counsel for the appellants that the said order was not challenged and infact the appellants have denied the benefit of

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1254,1255-1256 & 1257/BNG/2016

¶23

Page 4 of 5

¶24

the said order. The said order was not challenged by the appellant in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 in review petition.

¶25

It is also not denied by the appellant that due process has not been followed in view of the direction issued on 11^th August, 2015 and the confirmation order under appeal was passed on merits.

¶26

Under these circumstances the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant on this issue is rejected and we are of the considered view that the appeal is to be heard on merits.

¶27

List on 7^th July, 2017.

¶28

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶29

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶30

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶31

New Delhi,

¶32

20^th March, 2017