PMLA Tribunal Cannot Remand Back Order Of Attachment Passed By Adjudicating Authority For Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has no power to remand back to consider afresh the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment order.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate and said “Tribunal is creation of the Statute and it exercises limited power as conferred on it, by the Statute. There is no inherent power in a Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal is not a regular Court. If the Statute does not confer a power of remand, and there is no inherent power vested in the Tribunal, it cannot remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority unless it is specifically provided in the Statute itself.”
The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 11.10.2017, had confirmed the provisional Attachment Order dated 27.02.2017 regarding the properties (in the Form of Mutual Funds and Bank Accounts to the tune of Rs.21,38,66,041) of, M/s Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd.
However, the Tribunal set aside the order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority had not assigned any reasons, much less any legally cogent reasons, while confirming the provisional order of attachment.
It stated that the Authority has not applied its independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, it allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after considering the reply filed by the respondent to the notice under Section 8(1) of the PML Act.
The Agency argued that under sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the PML Act, the Tribunal has the power as Appellate Authority to pass an order confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against, as it deems fit; however, there is no such power of remand vested in the Appellate Tribunal. He further submitted that whenever a Statute wanted to confer the power of remand on an Appellate Authority or Tribunal, such a power has to be specifically provided.
Further, it was submitted that if the Tribunal remands the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, the attachment order would go and it would be difficult to trace the money. Once the money attachment order is removed and the money is taken away, the whole purpose of attachment would get frustrated.
The bench said, “In the absence of specific power of remand, the Tribunal could not have remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. As we hold that the Tribunal does not have the power to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to render its decision on merit after hearing the parties.”
Appearance: CGC Advocate Unni Krishnan for Appellant.
Advocate Manasa Sundarramen a/w Advocates Sushma Rao for Advocate Goutham R V for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
Case Title: THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020