Remanded

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015 of B. Nirmala v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP24 Jul 2017FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal set aside an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority for money laundering, holding that the ten-day notice to file a reply was insufficient and violated principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue after the appellant files a reply within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.03.2015 set aside; appellant granted four weeks to file reply; fresh order on merit to be passed thereafter.

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015 of B. Nirmala v/s The Joint Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2147/CHN/2015 (A.D.) MP-PMLA-1817/CHN/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015

¶3

B. Nirmala

¶4

… Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant : Shri R. Anand Padmanabhan, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 24.07.2017

¶9

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015

¶10

The above referred appeal has been filed under section 26 of PMLA, 2002 against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No. 395/2014 dated 25.03.2015. Admittedly, the appellant received the copy of the show cause from the Adjudicating Authority directing her to appear on 5^th March, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 17^th March, 2015 at the request of the appellant.

¶11

The case of the appellant i.e. Smt. B. Nirmala was that she came to Delhi on 14^th March, 2015 to finalise the reply. However since documents and account books were in vernacular and needed translation and, therefore, she requests for an adjournment when the

¶12

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

matter was fixed. The appellant sought eight weeks time to file the reply/submissions. However, the said time was not granted in the impugned order was passed on 25^th March, 2015. Admittedly the provisional order was passed on 9^th December, 2014 under section 5(1) of the Act subject the confirmation of order by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days not exceeding to that period. The said period of 180 days was expiring in the month of June, 2015. However, time sought by the appellant was not granted by the Adjudicating Authority and the impugned order was passed on 25^th March, 2015 despite two and a half months left. It is evident that no opportunity to raise the defence was given to the appellant by filing of reply.

¶15

It is settled law that any party whose valuable rights are involved in the movable and immovable properties is entitled to reasonable time to raise the defence. Thus we are of the view that instead of eight weeks atleast two or three weeks time ought to have been granted to the appellant to file the reply so that the order of provisional attachment order could have been examined by the Adjudicating Authority after considering the defence. The impugned order was passed within one week.

¶16

The principle of natural justice has not been followed under these circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶17

The appellant has been granted one opportunity to file the reply within four weeks and therefore after the matter will be decided within four months from today. Shri Vikas Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the date may be fixed for Adjudicating Authority so that the argument can be heard by the Adjudicating Authority. FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

As far as view taken by the Adjudicating Authority on merit is concerned, we do not before express any opinion. After the reply is filed, fresh order on merit is to be passed without any influence of impugned order dated 25.03.2015.

¶20

Both parties are allowed to appear.

¶21

Order to be given to ‘dasti’ to both parties.

¶22

Copy of the order also be sent to the Adjudicating Authority for

¶23

information.

¶24

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

No costs.

¶26

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶27

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶28

New Delhi, 24^th July, 2017

¶29

‘d’

¶30

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015

¶31

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015 of B. Nirmala v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-945/CHN/2015 of B. Nirmala v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases