The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for comprehensive consideration of the issues by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act, and the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.L.A. Industries Pvt. Ltd. to support the Petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Background

2. In this petition, the Petitioners challenge the impugned provisional attachment order (PAO) dated 7th June, 2021 in ECIR/03/INSZO/2014 passed by Respondent No. 1- Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Indore passed under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'PMLA Act'). The petitioner also challenges the show cause notice dated 13th July, 2021 issued by the Adjudicating Authority (hereinafter 'AA')

3. The present petition was first listed on 13th August, 2021 on which date the following order was passed:

"CM APPL. 26012/2021 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8421/2021 & CM APPL. 26011/2021 (stay)

3. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek to assail the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 3/2021 dated 07.06.2021, provisionally attaching the petitioners' power plant situated at Gadarwara, Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned PAO is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as the respondents had earlier passed an identical PAO on 04.01.2018 in respect of the same FIR, which provisional attachment was not approved by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA - which, after hearing the parties at length, had come to a categorical conclusion, vide its order dated 20.06.2018, that no case was made out against the petitioner for either generating proceeds of crime or laundering them. He further submits that though the respondent no.1 has assailed the aforesaid order by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, the same has not been stayed. He, therefore, contends that the impugned PAO dated 07.06.2021 is clearly barred by res-judicata and therefore, prays that the same be stayed.

5. Issue notice. Mr. Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for, and is granted, six weeks' time to file a reply. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

6. Mr. Mahajan is not in a position to dispute the fact that the impugned PAO is based on the same FIR as referred to in the previous PAO dated 04.01.2018.

7. In the light of this undisputed position that the impugned PAO is based on the same facts which were subject matter of the previous PAO dated 04.10.2018, which was not approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it is directed that till the next date, the operation of the impugned PAO dated 07.06.2021 shall remain stayed, as also all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

8. List on 07.01.2022."

4. A perusal of the above order would show that the case of the Petitioner is that the allegations raised against the Petitioner in the impugned PAO dated 7th June, 2021 were identically raised in a previous proceeding wherein PAO No. 01/2018 was issued by the Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi on 4th January, 2018.

5. It is observed that the FIR bearing Number RC 221/2014/E0001 dated 7th January, 2014 registered by the CBI was also the same in both the PAOs and even the underlying transactions which were considered are also the same. The Adjudicating Authority, in the first round of proceedings, had on 20th June, 2018 held that no case was made out against the Petitioner in respect of generation of proceeds of crime or laundering. The conclusion recorded by the AA in the said order dated 20th June 2018, are extracted below:

"10. Conclusion:

On a thorough perusal of the PA, Complaint, relied upon documents, the investigations conducted the statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA and on careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant and Defendants undersigned comes to the prima facie conclusion that the Defendants have neither committed the Scheduled Offence, nor generated proceeds of crime or laundered them. No doubt the properties attached are not proceeds of crime or value thereof and