Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
R.P. Infosystems Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
The Adjudication Authority and Another – Respondents
MAT No. 1253 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 - ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY - SINGLE MEMBER BENCH JURISDICTION - The adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can function with a single member bench as per Section 6(5)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Chairperson to constitute a bench with one or two members as deemed fit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a company facing money laundering charges, challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to proceed with the case due to the authority functioning with only one member, the Chairperson. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority should consist of three members as per Section 6(2) of the Act and that a single-member bench was quorum non judis.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the adjudicating authority is validly constituted and a single-member bench is competent to adjudicate matters under the Act. The court interpreted Section 6 of the Act and found that the Central Government has the power to appoint an adjudicating authority by notification, and the manner in which the authority functions is stipulated in Section 6(5). Clause (b) of Section 6(5) allows for a single-member bench constituted by the Chairperson.
Issues: 1. Whether the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can function with a single-member bench. 2. Whether the absence of two members in the adjudicating authority renders it quorum non judis.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the plain reading of Section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which empowers the Central Government to appoint an adjudicating authority by notification and specifies the manner in which the authority functions. 2. The court referred to Section 6(5)(b) of the Act, which allows the Chairperson of the adjudicating authority to constitute a bench with one or two members as deemed fit. 3. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the appellant, such as Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, which dealt with the constitutionality of tribunals in aid of the judicial branch, and Pareena Swaroop v. Union of India, which concerned the appointment and independence of members of the adjudicating authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the order passed by the learned single bench. The court directed the appellant to comply with the direction issued by the learned single bench within three weeks from the date of receiving the server copy of the order.
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 16.06.2023 in WPA No. 12335 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for issuance of a writ of declaration that the adjudicating authority under the provisions of the Preventing of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (the Act), the first respondent herein is statutorily incompetent to take up the case of the appellant in respect of OA No. 798 of 2023 and consequently to quash the said proceedings.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the first appellant was awarded a DGS and D rate contract for supply of its products namely desktop, computers, laptops and computers peripherals to the Government sector which were produced under the brand named “CHIRAG.”
3. In June 2011, IDBI Bank and the appellant entered into a loan syndication agreement they becoming the lead banker. On 01.02.2023, State Bank of Patiala (presently the State Bank of India) entered the consortium bankers who agreed to release to sanction limit of Rs. 50 crores upon receipt of a no-objection certificate from IDBI Bank. It is stated that IDBI Bank to be issued letter dated 22.02.2013 based on which the State Bank of India released Rs. 25 crores DD in favour of the appellant. By another letter dated 28.02.2013 credit information report of the appellant was furnished by IDBI to State Bank of India. Subsequently by letter dated 08.03.2013, it was stated by IDBI Bank that the aforementioned two letters were not issued by them and they sought for written clarification. Forensic report obtained by the State Bank of India stated that the letter dated 22.02.2013 there was no concrete evidence of forgery. On 11.05.2015, IDBI Bank requested CBI to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant No. 1 and its directors in respect of two letters dated 22.02.2013 and 28.02.2013. CBI initiated criminal proceedings and has been laid on 30.12.2016 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime during 2018, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) commenced enquiry and investigation under the provisions of the PMLA Act. An order of provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act was passed on 28.03.2018 and the said order was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, the first respondent on 11.09.2018. On 28.12.2022, the Enforcement Directorate conducted search and seizure operations under the provisions of the PMLA Act in the office of the first appellant and the residence of the second appellant and panchanama was drawn. The second appellant moved an application during January 2023 before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases for appointment of independent cyber expert from any government agency with a direction upon him to accompany and represent the second appellant at the time of data retrieval in the office of the investigation agency. The Special Court rejected the said application. Challenging the same, the appellant filed revision petition before this court in CRR No. 143 of 2023. In the said revision case, a direction was issued that the appellant shall be present in the office of ED on 13.01.2023 after which the Assistant Director, ED to prepare sealed cover of seized mobile phones and laptops in his presence and the articles will be sent to CFSL for data extraction and CFSL will in turn submit a report. This order was further clarified that the proceedings under Section 17(4) of the PMLA Act can continue but the adjudicating authority should not consider the CFSL report. On 05.05.2023, the first respondent informed the appellant that OA No. 798 of 2023 is listed on 12.05.2023 for final disposal before the adjudicating authority. It is stated that the learned advocate for the appellant prayed for adjournment as reply had been served to him during the course of the hearing and expressing certain other inconvenience as the learned advocate for the appellant was placed at Delhi at the
The adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can function with a single-member bench as per Section 6(5)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Chairperson to constitute ....
The court established that the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, while exercising powers that may appear judicial, operates primarily as an administrative body, and its composition does not nece....
The judgment established the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable, and the Adjudicating Authority's Order did not warrant any interference.
The court upheld the validity of a show-cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, affirming that the adjudicating authority may operate as a single-member bench without violating sta....
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
