The main legal principle established in the judgment is the distinction between protecting the right to remedy and extending the time for filing proceedings. The court emphasizes that the right to relief arises immediately after exhaustion of the 180 days window under the PMLA, and once such right is given to a litigant, it cannot be taken away.

JUDGMENT :

1. The short point before the Court is whether the statutory window for provisional attachment of the property under Section 5(1)(b) of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would be available to the Authority under Section 5 taking recourse to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.(S) 3/2020. By the said series of orders, the Supreme Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general and special laws with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further orders.

2. The facts in the present case relate to a provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021 relating to immovable properties belonging to M/s. K.P. Garments Private Limited represented by its directors who are the petitioners before this Court. The petitioner no. 1 replied to the impugned order on 3rd January, 2022. There is no other subsequent factual development on record after the petitioner’s reply. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has now called the petitioners for a hearing on 27th June, 2022 in continuation of the ECIR case of 2020 dated 17th February, 2020.

3. The petitioners are before this Court for contending that the ED cannot travel beyond the statutory limit of 180 days or take the benefit of the orders passed by the Supreme Court for the benefit of litigants during the Covid period. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the question of life and liberty of the petitioners would override all other conditions in the present case. It is also submitted that the 180 days expired on 31st March, 2022; taken from the provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, relies on the Supreme Court orders passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.(S) 3/2020 to urge that by the said orders the limitation period provided in the PMLA also stood extended. Counsel submits that the petitioners, having participated in the process, cannot now seek reliance on the statutory time-limit under the PMLA. Counsel places the object of the PMLA to contend that the Authorities must be at liberty to take all steps with regard to proceeds of crime.

5. After hearing learned counsel, the main issue for adjudication is whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can seek refuge under the orders passed by the Supreme Court extending the period of limitation in all general and special laws. The very stand of the ED, as also supported by the material on record, is that the ED has admittedly over-shot the statutory time-limit of 180 days under the PMLA. The provisional order of attachment is of 30th September, 2021 and the notice of hearing now allegedly received by the petitioners is of June, 2022. The 180 days expired on 31st March, 2022.

6. The writ petition was filed on 26th May, 2022 and seeks setting aside of the provisional order of attachment dated 30th September, 2021 relying on the 180 days window available to the ED.

7. The decisions placed before this Court in support of and against the statutory time-limit can be divided into two groups. In Rajendra Kumar Murarka vs Mohsina Tabassum; W.P.A. 10728 of 2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Supreme Court extended the time for all pending proceedings and hence the time-limit for adjudication of 180 days may be deemed to have been extended. The Division Bench in M.A.T. 627 of 2021 declined to interfere with the view of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court interfered with the Single Bench order in Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) vs. Sh. Gobinda Das; M.A.T. 1168 of 2021 holding that the Adjudicating Authority cannot be seen as a “non-litigant” with reference to the Supreme Court orders. The order of the learned Single Judge (which the petitioners have relied upon in the present writ petition before this Court) was accordingly vacated on that basis. Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited; (2022) 5 SCC 112, restricted the ap