Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Nav Nirman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Naveen Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India Ranchi, Jharkhand – Respondent
Yes, the doctrine of merger is mentioned in this case. It is discussed in the context of the finality of orders passed by higher forums, such as the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court, which supersede and replace earlier orders passed by the lower courts or authorities. Specifically, once an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA is challenged and an appeal is filed before a higher forum, the original order is deemed to have merged with the subsequent order, and the higher order takes precedence. This concept prevents the lower courts or authorities from re-examining issues that have already been decided upon by the appellate or higher courts, ensuring consistency and finality in legal proceedings. The judgment explicitly states that the order passed by the higher forum "supersedes and replaces" the earlier order, and that there can be only one final order under Section 8(3). This illustrates the application of the doctrine of merger within the context of the statutory scheme of the PMLA. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. An interesting question of law has arisen in this appeal, on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “PMLA”).
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent - Union of India. We have also perused the written submissions and the documents filed by both sides, in respect of their contentions.
BRIEF FACTS
4. We are only recording brief facts, as the issues relating thereto are not required to be examined for deciding the present appeal.
5. A partnership firm, by the name M/s. Nav Nirman Builders (hereinafter referred to as the “firm”) was constituted on 01.04.1993 with Dharamveer Bhadoria (since deceased) as its Managing Partner. After more than a decade from its constitution, the appellant company was incorporated with the earlier partners of the firm, including Dharamveer Bhadoria who was made its Managing Director. The firm secured a work order from the Executive Engineer (RCD), Chaibasa, on 23.02.2007. Upon completion of the work, a payment of approximately Rs. 79,11,559/- was made to the firm.
6. Two years thereafte
(1) Attachment and confiscation of property – Special Court cannot go into issues which higher forums have been entrusted with.(2) Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of PMLA are stand-alone provisions – S....
Restoration of assets under the PMLA requires adherence to procedural mandates, specifically necessitating completion of charge framing before claims can be approved.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 proceedings are criminal in nature, necessitating appeals to be filed on the criminal side due to potential penalties including imprisonment and property ....
PMLA overrides recovery statutes; no priority for secured creditors over attached proceeds of crime; bona fide claimants may seek Special Court restoration under section 8(8) post-attachment or confi....
The impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and PMLA Rule, 2016, and was set aside.
The court upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before invoking writ jurisdiction, affirming that 'proceeds of crime' includes property in....
A mere agreement to sell an immovable property does not confer ownership; adherence to procedural mandates of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is necessary for valid attachment of properties li....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
