The court emphasized the necessity of communicating judicial orders to affected parties, particularly when they are in custody, as a fundamental aspect of natural justice.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the notice dated 2.12.2024 issued under Section 8(4) of the PMLA and Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or frozen properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2013 by the Directorate of Enforcement to the respondent No.2/ICICI Bank directing to transfer the outstanding balance in five fixed deposits (FDRs) maintained by the petitioner to another bank by the ED.

2. Facts of the case in brief is that a legal notice was sent by the ED on the basis of the order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA in OC No. 2318/2024 confirming the Provisional Attachment Order No. 2/2024 dated 02.05.2024 passed in the Enforcement case Information Report dated 11.04.2024 registered by the ED under the PMLA.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was neither informed in person or through its counsel regarding the pronouncement of the Confirming Order and the following aspects are as under:

(I) Pronouncement of orders before the Adjudicating Authority is notified by way of a cause list that is publicly accessible. In other cases, the intimation of pronouncement of an order is given through e-mail.

(ii) the order of the learned adjudicating authority is not uploaded or on accessible through it website.

(iii) counsel for the petitioner has filed Vakalatnama on the behalf of the petitioner on 26.09.2024 when the complaint was finally heard and filed the written submissions on 29.09.2024 whereby the Adjudicating Authority was intimated that the petitioner (Director-Trilok Singh Dhillon) was in judicial custody.

(iv) the Director of the Company (Trilok Singh Dhillon) is in judicial custody at Central Jail Raipur and which is established from the following facts:

(i) the service of Show Cause Notice of OC No. 2318/2024 upon Trilok Singh Dhillon was effectuated in Central Jail

(ii) the Vakalatnama filed before the learned Adjudicating Authority contains an endorsement of the Jail Superintendent &

(iii) the pleadings in the written submission filed before the Adjudicating Authority and those made in the petition makes it amply clear that the Director of the Petitioner Company is in jail and therefore the service of the order dated 7.10.2024 ought to have been effectuated in jail.

(iv) The submission that the director of the petitioner/Company (Trilok Singh Dhillon) is in custody and neither the counsel for the petitioner was intimated or the copy of the confirming order was delivered or communicated to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel did not enter his appearance on the date of pronouncement of the Confirming Order and the ED has not supplied any proof of any email or intimation being sent to the petitioner or his counsel with regard to the pronouncement of the order. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner the date of the pronouncement of the Confirming Order cannot be deemed to have been communicated to the petitioner as per Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 (“Regulations”) Regulation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not only entitled to be informed about the operative part or the final directions in the Confirming Order but also the reasons and grounds upon which the PAO was being confirmed. (Regulation 26, Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013). He submits that the failure to intimate the petitioner of the pronouncement of the Confirming Order and the subsequent failure to supply copy of the Confirming Order by the the learned Adjudicating Authority is failure to comply the principles of natural justice. The PAO (Provisional Attachment Order) passed by the Ed in the prsent case is a complete abuse of process and does ot meet the requirement of Section 5 & 8 of the