SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
M/s Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 565 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 26-10-2021 in Wpcr No. 226 of 2021 Passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
Decided On : 07-02-2022
PMLA - Provisional Attachment Order - Sections 5, 8 - Summary of the PMLA provisions and their interpretation by the court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the High Court's order remanding the matter to the authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for a fresh order under Section 5(1) due to lack of proper satisfaction in the provisional attachment order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the success in quashing the provisional attachment order does not nullify the adjudication proceedings, which must proceed independently in accordance with the law.
Issues: Challenge to the High Court's order and the impact on the adjudication process
Ratio Decidendi: The success in challenging the provisional attachment order does not affect the adjudication process, and the authority can pass a fresh order under Section 5(1) if required.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedies, including questioning the validity of a fresh provisional attachment order.
Key Points: - The success in challenging a provisional attachment order does not nullify the adjudication proceedings under PMLA; adjudication can proceed independently. (!) - A fresh order under Section 5(1) may be required, but it does not prevent the adjudicating authority from continuing with the proceedings. (!) - The High Court’s quashing of provisional attachment is not a bar to subsequent adjudication or to challenging a new provisional attachment order; rejection of the special leave petition leaves room to pursue other remedies, including questioning the validity of a fresh provisional attachment order. (!) (!) - The satisfaction required under Section 5(1) involves (i) connection to proceeds of crime and (ii) likelihood of concealment/transfer by the owner; this satisfies interim attachment during pendency of adjudication. (!) - Provisional attachment is an executive action separate from the adjudication under Sections 5 and 8; the latter proceeds to final confiscation or release. (!) - The adjudication is triggered after a complaint under Section 5(5) or an application under Sections 17(4) and 18(10). (!) - The order under review does not express a merits decision on the adjudication; it addresses procedural compliance of the provisional attachment order. (!) - Pending applications are disposed of. (!)
ORDER
1. This special leave petition takes exception to the order passed by the High Court remanding the matter to the concerned authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PMLA"), to pass a fresh order under Section 5(1), in light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
2. According to the petitioner, the High Court having acceded to the argument of the petitioner that the provisional attachment order served on the petitioner did not disclose proper reason, much less tangible reason and only reproduced the provisions of the subject Act, ought not to have relegated the petitioner before the concerned authority for recording of reasons.
3. It is further urged that provisional attachment order triggers the adjudication proceedings and as the provisional attachment order is set aside by the High Court, no adjudication proceedings can be continued further against the petitioner.
4. Going by the scheme of Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, we have no hesitation in observing that the aforenoted argument is misplaced. The fact that the petitioner has succeeded before the High Court, does not per se result in nullifying the adjudication proceedings, which, nevertheless, can proceed and need to be taken to its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.
5. The satisfaction to be recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA is in two respects. The first is that the property in question had been acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in an offence of money laundering; and the second satisfaction specific in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act is that the owner/occupant of the property, who is in possession, is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner. This satisfaction is recorded for the purpose of interim arrangement during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings for securing the property in question. The adjudication on the other hand, gets triggered after the complaint under Section 5(5) is filed before the adjudicating authority or on an application under Section 17(4) and also 18(10) of the Act. There is no express provision in the Act, at least brought to our notice, to indicate that once complaint is filed before the Adjudicating Authority, the authorised officer is prevented from passing a provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the Act. As a matter of fact, the power to provisionally attach tainted property is only of the authorised officer upon being satisfied about the existence of circumstances referred to in Section 5(1). The adjudication under Section 8 entails finally in confiscation of the tainted property or release thereof.
6. In other words, the fact that the petitioner has succeeded in persuading the High Court to quash the provisional attachment order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 5(1) of the Act, will in no way impact the adjudication process initiated before the adjudicating authority, which must proceed on its own merits in accordance with law.
7. In our opinion, therefore, the challenge to the order as passed by the High Court to send back the matter to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order, if so advised, is unexceptionable. For, the petitioner has succeeded before the High Court on the limited argument that the stated order does not record proper satisfaction as required under Section 5(1) of the Act, but merely reproduces the provisions of the Act. Hence, we decline to interfere in this special leave petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. We make it clear that rejection of this special leave petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing other appropriate remedy including to question the validity of fresh order of provisional attachment, if passed by the appropriate authority.
9. This order is not an opinion on the merits of the issues, to be dealt with by the adjudicating authority or the appropriate authority, as the c
Success in challenging a provisional attachment order does not nullify the adjudication proceedings under the PMLA.
The maintainability of a petition challenging impugned orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the same orders had already been dealt with in a previous order, and the petitio....
The court emphasizes that when statutory remedies are available, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised unless there are exceptional reasons to d....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.